All,
> Perhaps declaring 6to4 deprecated rather than historic would have a
> better chance of consensus.
Pardon my ignorance, but where is the document describing the
implications of historic{,al} vs deprecated?
This (http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2026#section-4.2.4) is well known:
"""
A specification that has been superseded by a more recent
specification or is for any other reason considered to be obsolete is
assigned to the "Historic" level. (Purists have suggested that the
word should be "Historical"; however, at this point the use of
"Historic" is historical.)
Note: Standards track specifications normally must not depend on
other standards track specifications which are at a lower maturity
level or on non standards track specifications other than referenced
specifications from other standards bodies. (See Section 7.)
"""
I don't know where similar explanatory language about "Deprecated"
might be (I'm sure I just didn't search correctly or long enough).
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf