On Thu, Jun 9, 2011 at 13:30, Randy Presuhn <randy_presuhn@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Hi -
> From: "Rémi Després" <remi.despres@xxxxxxx>
> To: "Randy Presuhn" <randy_presuhn@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: <ietf@xxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Thursday, June 09, 2011 1:11 AM
> Subject: Re: [v6ops] Last Call: <draft-ietf-v6ops-6to4-to-historic-04.txt>...
> > I'm pretty sure Noel was being scarcastic. There's clear precedent in the> RFC 1227 specified an experimental protocol.
> > analogous case where RFC 1227 was declared historic, despite its
> > widespread use for that particular application at the time.
>
> The 6to4 specification is standard track.
> Declaring historic a standard track specification although it still serves
> legitimate needs would, AFAIK, be a precedent, a regrettable one IMHO.
Consider, then, RFC 1157.
It was, quite rightly, declared historic years ago, even though it
was a full standard and in rather widespread use at the time.
Despite that declaration, it remains in use. This despite all the
good reasons that its replacement should be used instead.
The point is that the "historic" declaration can be a statement
about how the IETF wants things to be, rather than how they are.
If one happens to be a user or vendor of a "historic" technology,
the declaration might sting a little, but it's really not a big deal, IMO.
Although I have already stated my position in this issue (against, for now), I have a problem with the above logic.
You are effectively arguing that this move won't really impact anything ... in which case I would ask, why are we doing it?
You are effectively arguing that this move won't really impact anything ... in which case I would ask, why are we doing it?
I suspect that 6to4 is a fairly unique case in that it, as pointed out earlier, relies on the good nature of others to operate relays "for the public good". Marking it as historic would, I imagine, demotivate ISPs to operate those relays and thus render the connectivity even worse than we are fearing.
Please don't confuse my position - I wholeheartedly believe the right answer is, and am very vocal in promoting, native IPv6 (dual stack) everywhere, for everyone. But we aren't there yet. Even though my home ISP has done more IPv6 than many|most, they aren't ready to do native here, yet. I often rely on 6to4 is _many) scenarios and simply want something that exists to keep working until the alternatives are more available.
Please don't confuse my position - I wholeheartedly believe the right answer is, and am very vocal in promoting, native IPv6 (dual stack) everywhere, for everyone. But we aren't there yet. Even though my home ISP has done more IPv6 than many|most, they aren't ready to do native here, yet. I often rely on 6to4 is _many) scenarios and simply want something that exists to keep working until the alternatives are more available.
/TJ
_______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf