Ron, I believe 'draft-ietf-v6ops-6to4-advisory' is both necessary and sufficient regardless of whether "historic" is an appropriate characterization. So, I don't think we need this document. Thanks - Fred fred.l.templin@xxxxxxxxxx > -----Original Message----- > From: ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx [mailto:ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx] On > Behalf Of Ronald Bonica > Sent: Monday, July 25, 2011 7:31 AM > To: ietf@xxxxxxxx > Subject: draft-ietf-v6ops-6to4-to-historic (yet again) > > Folks, > > 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