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

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



I shudder to think that this is a prerequisite for declaring something Historic.

 

If some RFC meant to solve some problem turns out not only to be a bad idea but also shows that the problem itself is essentially intractable, I don’t think it’s practical at all to require a replacement before declaring the RFC Historic.

 

From: v6ops-bounces@xxxxxxxx [mailto:v6ops-bounces@xxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Keith Moore
Sent: Sunday, July 03, 2011 12:31 PM
To: Arturo Servin
Cc: IPv6 Operations; IETF Discussion
Subject: Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-v6ops-6to4-to-historic

 

Honestly I'd be happy to declare 6to4 Historic if we had a suitable replacement - one that could be automatically configured by hosts, used by applications, and worked better than 6to4 in most cases.  I don't think it exists yet.  

 

[…]

 

Keith

 

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

[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Fedora Users]