On Jul 2, 2011, at 8:14 PM, Keith Moore wrote: > On Jul 2, 2011, at 10:00 PM, Erik Kline wrote: > >>> Since 6rd depends on 6to4, as it is a variant of it, would 6to4 being >>> declared historic also mean that 6rd needs to become historic as well? >> >> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-v6ops-6to4-to-historic-05 >> Section 1, in which the draft clarifies that 6rd supersedes 6to4, > > which is of course completely incorrect.
While 6rd shares a mechanism with 6 to 4 and can be implemented by reusing code, it is a mistake to conclude a standards action that impacts the later would impact the former, or that they are substitutable for each other. > Keith > > > _______________________________________________ > Ietf mailing list > Ietf@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
_______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
