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

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

 



On Wednesday, July 06, 2011 04:49:47 PM Martin Rex wrote:
> Doug Barton wrote:
> > On 07/06/2011 13:14, Martin Rex wrote:
> > > Doug Barton wrote:
> > > > I was however willing to accept "historic" as a reasonable
> > > > compromise.
> > > 
> > > "historic" as a compromise?  Between which two positions?
> > 
> > Nuking it from orbit, and erecting a statue in its honor?
> 
> Which to options that are actually available to the IESG?  I see
> 
> extremist-A:  nuke/kill 6to4 by moving 3056/3068 to historic
> 
> compromise:   move 3056/3068 off Standards Track,
>               i.e. by reclassifying them as Experimental
> 
> blocked:      leave 3056/3068 at Proposed, publish only 6to4-advisory
> 
> extremist-B:  stick fingers in ears, sing la-la-la, pretend 6to4 is perfect

I think I've read this entire thread and I don't recall anyone advocating 
extremist-B.

Scott K
_______________________________________________
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]