Good catch - that seems to be a little obsolete text that's
sitting around in the I-D tracker. The draft itself is
clear that Historic is the intention.
Brian
On 2007-02-28 15:07, Elwyn Davies wrote:
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