On Jun 9, 2011, at 7:37 AM, Keith Moore wrote: > > 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. After it became clear to me that IETF will not be issuing a phase-out plan for 6to4, I recommended to all the relevant product managers at Apple that we should continue supporting 6to4 in new implementations for the foreseeable future (despite the non-RFC2119 'not recommended' line in section 1). I don't see why this draft should discourage anyone from continuing to support 6to4, which as you point out is a *uniquely* useful protocol that people depend on and find *irreplaceable*. Reclassifying it as Historic simply allows IETF working groups to operate on the fiction that 6to4 will eventually disappear someday in the indefinite and vaguely hopeful future. While I don't think that self-delusion will be a good thing for IETF in the long run, I have a hard time getting too bummed out about it. Pragmatism will find its way into deliberations. Yes, I think this draft is a pointless waste of time. The reason I support publishing it, however, is that I disagree with your assessment of the harm it could do. Also, it enjoys widespread support in the V6OPS working group and the opposition, while vocal, seems quite small. That looks like rough consensus to me, and if I can help get it off our agenda sooner by supporting it rather than opposing it, then I say let's print it. I confidently predict the reclassification to Historic will be roundly ignored not just by Apple product engineering but by the entire industry. We're smart enough to recognize that we're not the target audience for the RFC. The draft that matters is the companion advisory draft. It would be nice if the 6to4-to-historic draft could be spiked so as not to distract from its companion, but I don't see that as a likely outcome. Alas and alack. -- james woodyatt <jhw@xxxxxxxxx> member of technical staff, core os networking _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf