ietf
[Top] [All Lists]

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

2011-08-08 13:37:40
Folks,

After an active discussion, it is clear that there is no consensus. So, I will 
transition draft-ietf-v6ops-6to4-to-historic to the DEAD state.

                                                    Ron


-----Original Message-----
From: Ronald Bonica
Sent: Monday, July 25, 2011 10:31 AM
To: ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
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

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>
  • RE: draft-ietf-v6ops-6to4-to-historic (yet again), Ronald Bonica <=