... or to use Randy's language, "6to4 considered caterpillar snot," but yes, that is what I was thinking that end of the spectrum looked like. Doug On 07/07/2011 01:30, Yoav Nir wrote: > 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. -- Nothin' ever doesn't change, but nothin' changes much. -- OK Go Breadth of IT experience, and depth of knowledge in the DNS. Yours for the right price. :) http://SupersetSolutions.com/ _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf