I shudder to think that this is a prerequisite for declaring something Historic.
If some RFC meant to solve some problem turns out not only to be a bad idea but also shows that the problem itself is essentially intractable, I don't think it's practical at all to require a replacement before declaring the RFC Historic. From: v6ops-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:v6ops-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Keith Moore Sent: Sunday, July 03, 2011 12:31 PM To: Arturo Servin Cc: IPv6 Operations; IETF Discussion Subject: Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-v6ops-6to4-to-historic Honestly I'd be happy to declare 6to4 Historic if we had a suitable replacement - one that could be automatically configured by hosts, used by applications, and worked better than 6to4 in most cases. I don't think it exists yet. [...] Keith
_______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
