----- Original Message ----- From: "Randy Presuhn" <randy_presuhn@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> To: <ietf@xxxxxxxx> Sent: Friday, July 22, 2011 5:53 PM > 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. But Randy, you already have; you have spent time sending an e-mail; I was hoping that this time there would be no response at all. Tom Petch > > Randy > > _______________________________________________ > Ietf mailing list > Ietf@xxxxxxxx > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf