On Jun 9, 2011, at 9:25 PM, Randy Presuhn wrote: > Your argument seems to be that the peculiar operational characteristics of 6to4 > should give it additional immunity to being declared historic. I don't find that > argument persuasive. That's not my argument. My argument is that declaring 6to4 Historic is inconsistent with the way we've used Historic in the past - namely to label something that either 'hardly anybody uses anymore' or something that should be abandoned because a better alternative is now generally available. > The history of multiple protocols that have been > declared "historic" shows that vendors seem to care about that designation > only when it is convenient for them to do so. Installed base, customer > demand, operational considerations and so on all trump whatever the IETF > might say about a "historic" protocol. This works both ways: folks might > decide to kill something before it becomes historic, or support it long after. > We can't compel people to continue supporting it any more than we can > make them stop. At most, we can give them (hopefully convincing) reasons > to change. If the SNMP experience shows anything, it shows that even > that isn't enough. For that reason, I find it amusing when others write of > "killing" 6to4. We don't have that kind of power. Declaring 6to4 Historic certainly won't prevent people from implementing it. But the proposed action is clearly intended to discourage implementation of 6to4. It says so explicitly. Of course some vendors will ignore it, but some vendors will probably not ignore it. Keith _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf