RE: [v6ops] Last Call: <draft-ietf-v6ops-6to4-to-historic-04.txt>(Request to move Connection of IPv6 Domains via IPv4Clouds (6to4) to Historic status) to Informational RFC

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Its 'rough' consensus...
I don't wanna rat-hole here, but imho send the draft onwards for
publication asap please.

G/

-----Original Message-----
From: v6ops-bounces@xxxxxxxx [mailto:v6ops-bounces@xxxxxxxx] On Behalf
Of Keith Moore
Sent: 09 June 2011 16:38
To: james woodyatt
Cc: v6ops@xxxxxxxx WG; ietf@xxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [v6ops] Last Call:
<draft-ietf-v6ops-6to4-to-historic-04.txt>(Request to move Connection of
IPv6 Domains via IPv4Clouds (6to4) to Historic status) to Informational
RFC

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

_______________________________________________
v6ops mailing list
v6ops@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf


[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Fedora Users]