On Jun 8, 2011, at 7:20 PM, james woodyatt wrote: > 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. I have also seen those claims in v6ops email (haven't caught up with all of it, but have seen a few messages). I don't buy the argument. Clearly the intent of this draft and protocol action are to discourage use of 6to4, particularly in new implementations. You can't discourage use of 6to4 in new implementations without harming people who are already using it and depending on it. (That would be a bit like declaring IPv4 Historic and discouraging new implementations from supporting it - when we all know that there will be people using IPv4 in corner cases for many years even after the public Internet no longer routes it. Legacy hardware and software that's still in use, etc.) When the draft is clearly intended to do harm to 6to4, and there are clearly people using 6to4 in the Real World, it strikes me as disingenuous for its proponents to claim that the document will do no harm. > Publish it. Publish it now. Let its authors be free to pursue more useful ends than defending it. The authors are already free to abandon the effort and pursue more useful ends. Not only would publishing this do harm to 6to4 and its users, it would set a bad precedent. We're supposed to be working toward consensus, not trying to cause harm to things that people use. Keith _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf