--On Saturday, July 16, 2011 08:34 +1200 Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >... > We can spend another few months debating the exact form of > words for a normative document advising implementors to do > what most of them are now doing; I don't care and it basically > doesn't matter except in the IETF's tiny world. That isn't > what's important. What's important is to get as many operators > as possible doing what they can to ameliorate the situation. Brian, It seems to me that you can take two positions here, but not both as the same time. Position #1: What the IETF does, and how it classifies things, actually make a difference. If that is true then the advice document should look a lot more mandatory and should certainly be shown as updating the 6to4 base documents (I note that the latter decision could be made without reopening the document in any significant way). Whether it is part of the advice document or not, an applicability statement that discusses what is really going on is important and reclassification to Historic would be stupid. If nothing else, unless it reclassifies your advice doc to Historic as well, reclassification to Historic would be appeal-bait. And classifying your document as Historic also would rather dilute the message. Position #2: How the IETF classifies things makes very little difference in this space because people will follow advice that seems sensible and ignore everything else. If so, it makes little difference how your document is approved or where it is published. For example, it could have come through the Independent Stream or been pushed into CCR. No problem. And the "Historic" effort is a huge waste of the community's time, no matter how it comes out. Just my opinion -- you will probably continue to disagree. best, john _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf