> From: james woodyatt <jhw@xxxxxxxxx>
> I supported 6to4-advisory and strenuously argued against taking up
> 6to4-to-historic.
> ...
> I can see how 6to4-to-historic may divert its intended audience from
> reading the much more important 6to4-advisory draft
I must admit, it does seem a little odd to issue two documents, one fixing a
protocol that you're about to declare obsolete with the other...
> the [6to4-to-historic] draft is clearly written to specify something
> other than what its authors and most of the WG were intending.
I'm afraid that was a little too Delphic for me. I can understand if you'd
said something like 'its authors clearly wrote it to specify something other
than what most of the WG were intending' - but how can a document have an
intent that its authors know nothing of (which is how I read the above)?
> I do, however, wonder if we can finally remove 2002::/16 from the
> default policy table in the next revision of RFC 3484 on the grounds
> that 6to4 is Historic now, just like 3ffe::/16 is... that would be
> *excellent*.
Umm, is this a serious suggestion, or are you just having a little fun in a
second-cousin-to-trolling way?
I mean, this is _exactly_ the sort of consequence of moving 6to4 to
'historic' that I think a lot of the people who oppose that move are worried
about: that although they are still using it (because it works in their
circumstances, and provides capabilities that other things such as 6rd do
not), people will use the existence of 6to4-to-historic to move on and do
things which negatively impact the users' ability to move packets around.
You weren't by any chance trying to show an example of the downsides of
that decision, were you?
Noel
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf