Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-v6ops-6to4-to-historic

[Joel Jaeggli <joelja@xxxxxxxxx>]

On Jul 2, 2011, at 8:14 PM, Keith Moore wrote:

On Jul 2, 2011, at 10:00 PM, Erik Kline wrote:

Since 6rd depends on 6to4, as it is a variant of it, would 6to4 being

declared historic also mean that 6rd needs to become historic as well?

http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-v6ops-6to4-to-historic-05
Section 1, in which the draft clarifies that 6rd supersedes 6to4,

which is of course completely incorrect.

While 6rd shares a mechanism with 6 to 4 and can be implemented by reusing code, it is a mistake to conclude a standards action that impacts the later would impact the former, or that they are substitutable for each other.

Keith

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

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