On Jul 25, 2011, at 10:30 AM, Ronald Bonica wrote:
Please post your views on this course of action by August 8, 2011.
I remain convinced that this document is unnecessary and publishing it would be
silly, at best, and at worst, the simultaneous publication of 6to4-to-historic
alongside 6to4-advisory, which implicitly contradict one another-- the latter
says that 6to4 has an indefinite future and here's how to keep everything
operational in its presence on the Internet; the former says 6to4 has no
future, and it should not be used by anyone for any purpose-- may turn out to
be an embarrassment for IETF. IESG should feel very nervous about claiming
there is consensus to publish this draft. It does not appear to me like there
is a rough consensus for it.
That said, I won't complain too loudly if this draft is published. It would
give me cover to ask my employers for 6to4 capability to be removed from
forthcoming products that I mainly work to support. I don't like taking
features away from users when there isn't a suitable upgrade path for them, but
the truth is that fielding problems from the field resulting from 6to4 failure
can be pretty tiresome, and I would welcome the cover from IETF to be able to
say, "Oh, you're still using 6to4? You should turn that off. It's deprecated
by IETF now, and accordingly, we no longer support it. Get native IPv6
service."
In other words, whether IESG means to convey this message or not, publishing
6to4-to-historic alongside the existing 6to4-advisory-- without any clear
phase-out plan-- will pretty clearly imply to people like me that the official
phase-out plan is to remove 6to4 from the Internet, starting as soon as vendors
and operators are independently able to do so. "Start the engines of
destruction."
--
james woodyatt <jhw(_at_)apple(_dot_)com>
member of technical staff, core os networking
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf