On Jun 8, 2011, at 2:32 PM, Dmitry Anipko wrote: > > [...] And it unclear to me why IETF would want to take away a _transition_ technique from people for whom it is working... Let's be very clear. This proposed RFC would not "take away" the 6to4 transition mechanism. The working group considered and rejected the idea of publishing a phase-out plan. This draft sets no new requirements for most current vendors of 6to4-capable equipment. It is a purely procedural bill, not a technical one. As such, it will damage no one. This draft does redundantly make some recommendations that are also made in I-D.ietf-v6ops-6to4-advisory, which is the companion document with technical content intended for audiences other than the IETF itself. These recommendations mainly say that 6to4 SHOULD NOT be enabled by DEFAULT. Beyond that, the principle point of this draft is to flip a categorization flag that nobody outside IETF cares about. The practical effect of that will be to free the authors of future working group drafts from a procedural requirement to consider whether 6to4 poses any special problems for the subjects of future standards efforts. I'm okay with that, actually, but I have a hard time imagining how it helps them avoid being pragmatic about what's actually deployed in the real world. Reality must take precedence over public relations, as Professor Feynman said. After much consideration on this draft, I have concluded that every moment IETF spends arguing over it is one that would be put to better use discussing almost anything else... even which cute word we should use for the colon-separated fields in the IPv6 address presentation format. Publish it. Publish it now. Let its authors be free to pursue more useful ends than defending it. -- james woodyatt <jhw@xxxxxxxxx> member of technical staff, core os networking _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf