I oppose this action. I see clear evidence that 6to4 is damaging the Internet and although there are those who can use it without causing damage, I believe that the principle is 'First, do no harm' so the IETF has a responsibility to discourage its use. For me, classifying it as 'Historic' is the best way of doing this but I see that there are those dead set against it.
Redefining 'Historic', as proposed here, can only confuse given the previous and successful widespread use of this technical term. Several have suggested that an alternative would be to recast this I-D as an Applicability Statement and, while I would not see this as good as 'Historic', since I think that it carries less weight, I would still see that as strong enough to get across the message - '6to4 damages the Internet - don't do it' leaving those who know better to know better. Tom Petch ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ronald Bonica" <rbon...@juniper.net> To: <ietf@ietf.org> Sent: Monday, July 25, 2011 4:30 PM 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@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
