It looked like a great idea at the time, but the time has passed, and historic is clearly appropriate.
-----Original Message----- From: ipv6-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ipv6-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Tina TSOU Sent: Thursday, August 11, 2011 3:13 PM To: Brian E Carpenter; 6man Cc: Tim Chown Subject: RE: A6 record status Brian, I'm with you. I don't use A6 record in any case. Best Regards, Tina TSOU http://tinatsou.weebly.com/contact.html -----Original Message----- From: ipv6-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ipv6-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Brian E Carpenter Sent: Thursday, August 11, 2011 3:06 PM To: 6man Cc: Tim Chown Subject: A6 record status Hi, What do 6man people think about moving RFC 2874 (the A6 record) from Experimental to Historic status? It's pretty clear that it doesn't have any real value, and it can still create confusion for newcomers. IMHO this doesn't need a draft; the IESG could just do it. Regards Brian Carpenter -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 -------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 -------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
