ietf
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: draft-ietf-v6ops-6to4-to-historic (yet again)

2011-07-27 03:35:57
I oppose this action.

I see clear evidence that 6to4 is damaging the Internet and although there are
those who can use it without causing damage, I believe that the principle is
'First, do no harm'
so the IETF has a responsibility to discourage its use.  For me, classifying it
as 'Historic' is the best way of doing this but I see that there are those dead
set against it.

Redefining 'Historic', as proposed here, can only confuse given the previous and
successful widespread use of this technical term.

Several have suggested that an alternative would be to recast this I-D as an
Applicability Statement and, while I would not see this as good as 'Historic',
since I think that  it carries less weight, I would still see that as strong
enough to get across the message - '6to4 damages the Internet - don't do it'
leaving those who know better to know better.

Tom Petch

----- Original Message -----
From: "Ronald Bonica" <rbonica(_at_)juniper(_dot_)net>
To: <ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org>
Sent: Monday, July 25, 2011 4:30 PM
Subject: draft-ietf-v6ops-6to4-to-historic (yet again)


Folks,

After some discussion, the IESG is attempting to determine whether there is
IETF consensus to do the following:

- add a new section to draft-ietf-v6ops-6to4-to-historic
- publish draft-ietf-v6ops-6to4-to-historic as INFORMATIONAL

draft-ietf-v6ops-6to4-to-historic will obsolete RFCs 3056 and 3068 and convert
their status to HISTORIC. It will also contain a new section describing what it
means for RFCs 3056 and 3068 to be classified as HISTORIC. The new section will
say that:

- 6-to-4 should not be configured by default on any implementation (hosts, cpe
routers, other)
- vendors will decide whether/when 6-to-4 will be removed from
implementations. Likewise, operators will decide whether/when 6-to-4 relays will
be removed from their networks. The status of RFCs 3056 and 3068 should not be
interpreted as a recommendation to remove 6-to-4 at any particular time.


draft-ietf-v6ops-6to4-to-historic will not update RFC 2026. While it clarifies
the meaning of "HISTORIC" in this particular case, it does not set a precedent
for any future case.

Please post your views on this course of action by August 8, 2011.


                                                                   Ron Bonica
                                                                   <speaking
as OPS Area AD>
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>