Extremist-A should be to publish a "6to4 considered dangerous" draft with lots of MUST NOT language. -----Original Message----- From: ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx [mailto:ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Martin Rex Sent: 06 July 2011 23:50 To: Doug Barton Cc: v6ops@xxxxxxxx; ietf@xxxxxxxx Subject: Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-v6ops-6to4-to-historic 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 -Martin _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf Scanned by Check Point Total Security Gateway. _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf