It seems strange that this e-mail is not copied to the v6ops list. I would have expected this first to have been hammered out on the v6ops list and, if and only if consensus was reached there, the new text be then brought to the IETF list. I realise that, as you spell out, you are seeking IETF consensus but what is that if the WG is dead set against it? Tom Petch ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ronald Bonica" <rbonica@xxxxxxxxxxx> To: <ietf@xxxxxxxx> Sent: Monday, July 25, 2011 4:30 PM > After some discussion, the IESG is attempting to determine whether there is IETF consensus to do the following: > > - add a new section to draft-ietf-v6ops-6to4-to-historic > - publish draft-ietf-v6ops-6to4-to-historic as INFORMATIONAL > > draft-ietf-v6ops-6to4-to-historic will obsolete RFCs 3056 and 3068 and convert their status to HISTORIC. It will also contain a new section describing what it means for RFCs 3056 and 3068 to be classified as HISTORIC. The new section will say that: > > - 6-to-4 should not be configured by default on any implementation (hosts, cpe routers, other) > - vendors will decide whether/when 6-to-4 will be removed from implementations. Likewise, operators will decide whether/when 6-to-4 relays will be removed from their networks. The status of RFCs 3056 and 3068 should not be interpreted as a recommendation to remove 6-to-4 at any particular time. > > > draft-ietf-v6ops-6to4-to-historic will not update RFC 2026. While it clarifies the meaning of "HISTORIC" in this particular case, it does not set a precedent for any future case. > > Please post your views on this course of action by August 8, 2011. > > > Ron Bonica > <speaking as OPS Area AD> > _______________________________________________ > Ietf mailing list > Ietf@xxxxxxxx > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf