On Jul 27, 2011, at 4:32 AM, Philip Homburg wrote:
In your letter dated Wed, 27 Jul 2011 12:38:33 +1000 you wrote:
In message <4E2F4491(_dot_)30102(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com>, Brian E Carpenter
writes:
Of course, if implementors choose to drop the code you might not be
able to upgrade software versions - but hopefully by that time you
will have native IPv6 service anyway.
Which is exactly why HISTORIC is NOT appropriate.
With rfc3484-revise and the documented brokenness of 6to4, it doesn't make
any sense for implementors to offer 6to4 anyhow.
False. It makes even more sense to offer 6to4 because it significantly
decreases the chance that it will cause a bad experience for users of services
that provide both v4 and v6 addresses, while increasing the chance letting
local hosts/users talk to v6-only services/hosts.
So I think it would be
quite weird to keep 6to4 at standards track just to prevent some vendors from
dropping 6to4 support.
Vendors can drop 6to4 support, or for that matter any other feature, anytime
they wish. They don't need permission from IETF to do that.
Keith
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf