Re: Last Call: draft-ietf-v6ops-natpt-to-historic (Reasons to Move NAT-PT to Historic Status) to Informational RFC

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Just to clarify the current situation...

The statement below says that the recommendation is for RFC 2766 to be reclassified to experimental.. As is implied by the title of the draft, it actually recommends reclassification to Historic.

This error results form a piece of history ;-) - The draft is fundamentally the same as draft-v6ops-natpt-to-exprmntl-03. The change in recommendation has been necessitated because it appears that RFC 2026 does not allow the transition to experimental. In the meantime it has become ever more clear that NAT-PT is of dubious value and could limit the development of IPv6 over time.

Regards,
Elwyn

Brian E Carpenter wrote:
I think it's important to publish this document, to make it
clear why NAT-PT is a solution of very dubious value.

    Brian

On 2007-02-27 20:14, The IESG wrote:
The IESG has received a request from the IPv6 Operations WG (v6ops) to consider the following document:

- 'Reasons to Move NAT-PT to Historic Status '
   <draft-ietf-v6ops-natpt-to-historic-00.txt> as an Informational RFC

This document recommends that the IESG reclassifies RFC 2766 from
Standards Track to Experimental status.


_______________________________________________

Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf


_______________________________________________

Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Fedora Users]