> > > > i tend to agree, but in rfc-index.txt i could not find the change of > > state to "Historic". what happend to very similar (and much more evil > > IMHO) transition technology, SIIT? > > If you look at draft-ietf-v6ops-natpt-to-historic-00.txt (the > draft that obsoletes NAT-PT), it is quite critical of SIIT > (RFC 2765), but does not obsolete it. > > [I attempted to obsolete SIIT before it was written (RFC 1671 > section B) but that didn't work :-) . There are parts of > RFC 1671 that are wrong, but not that part.] i cannot agree more. maybe it is time to revisit draft-itojun-v6ops-v4mapped-harmful-02.txt? itojun _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf