On Sat, 2 Jul 2011 20:54:50 +0200 Lorenzo Colitti <lorenzo@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Sat, Jul 2, 2011 at 6:36 PM, Ronald Bonica <rbonica@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > - In order for the new draft to be published, it must achieve both V6OPS WG > > and IETF consensus > > > > If anyone objects to this course of action, please speak up soon. > > > > Great, back to square one. > > Is the reasoning behind the decision explained somewhere? My reading of the > threads on the subject in v6ops was that the opposition to 6to4-historic was > a small but vocal minority, and I thought that qualified as rough consensus. > But perhaps I missed some discussion. > > Also, why do the author and the chairs think that the new draft will do any > better than 6to4-historic? I would assume that the same people who spoke up > against 6to4-historic will speak up against the new document, and since that > level of opposition was sufficient to prevent the publication > of 6to4-historic, it may be sufficient to prevent publication of the new > document as well. If so, we will have spent 3-6 months arguing about it for > naught. > I don't object to what has been proposed, yet I object to "6to4-historic" because I'm an extremely happy anycast 6to4 user and have been for many years (I just recently looked at the date in the script I wrote to bring it up, and was quite surprised it was dated 2002). Unfortunately people do judge books by their cover - if there is an RFC that says 6to4 is historic, people would likely consider it something that can't be used. We know it can operate correctly and reliably if it is configured correctly. If the criteria for declaring a technology historic is that some people can't operate it correctly and reliably, then they'll have to be plenty of other -historic RFCs. Perhaps declaring 6to4 deprecated rather than historic would have a better chance of consensus. > Please, nobody answer this question with "welcome to the IETF" :-) _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf