On 7/26/11 12:58 PM, SM wrote:
Hi Ron,
At 07:30 AM 7/25/2011, Ronald Bonica wrote:
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.
The above conflates document labels, Historic in this case, and advice
to vendors and operators. Redefining the meaning of Historic in a RFC
that is not even a BCP is a bad idea.
I am fine of 6-to-4 not to be configured on by default and obsoleting
RFCs 3056 and 3068. I do not support the redefinition of Historic or
the claim that there is IETF Consensus.
Agreed.
-Doug
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf