Re: Historic status (was Another look at 6to4 (and other IPv6 transitionissues))

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

 



Hi -

> From: "Mykyta Yevstifeyev" <evnikita2@xxxxxxxxx>
> To: <ietf@xxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Friday, July 22, 2011 3:16 AM
> Subject: Historic status (was Another look at 6to4 (and other IPv6 transitionissues))
...
> And what could/should be done?  I think, IESG and the whole community, 
> cooperating with IAB, IRSG and ISE, should determine the definition of 
> Historic which will be fine enough to cover all existing issues with it, 
> and then either publish such approach as BCP or incorporate when 
> updating RFC 2026.  This will eliminate the problems with different 
> issues with procedures for and understanding of Historic RFCs as well as 
> clear up one of "dark places" in IETF process.
...

After universal IPv6 deployment has been achieved, after we have
workable standardized configuration management, after all significant
protocols have been properly secured, and after NAT has been
banished from this planet, I *might* be persuaded to support
spending time on this.

Randy

_______________________________________________
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]