I'm sorry, I seem to have goofed up during mail editing... I meant to write that cassifying 6to4 as historic is INappropriate use of the IETF process in the last sentence. -Martin Martin Rex wrote: > > George, Wesley wrote: > > > > > It's time to remove the stabilisers on the IPv6 bicycle. > > > > This takes nothing away. It's not as if the day that this draft gets > > published as an RFC, 6to4 stops working. > > > In my personal perception, the "historic" status used to be a technical > characterization to indicate that > > (1) a protocol or technology has been fully replaced by some newer > protocol and there is no reason to continue using the original > technology anymore because the successor can be used in each > of the original usage scenarios today > > (2) the protocol/technology has been largely put out of use, and its > active use has dropped to marginal levels (like less than 1% of the > original active use) > > Personally, I have never conciously used anything related to IPv6 so > far, so for me it is difficult to comment, but what has been said > looks to me that neither (1) nor (2) apply to 6to4. > > The user base seems to have always been small, and most of the users > of 6to4 simply did _not_ have an alternative -- and its current > users still do _not_ have an alternative today. > > Classification of 6to4 as historic is appropriate use of the IETF process, > because it would be a political, but not an accurate technical statement. > > > -Martin _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf