+1
-------- Message d'origine-------- De: ipv6-boun...@ietf.org de la part de Jiangsheng Date: ven. 12-août-11 02:57 À: Brian E Carpenter; 6man Cc: Tim Chown Objet : RE: A6 record status +1 When we did 6renum current practise analysis, we found A6 record is helpful in renumbering cases. However, we then found it has many issues, which has been documented in RFC 3363 and RFC 3364. If A6 stays experimental status, it is really misleading. We should avoid this confusion by moving it to Historic. Sheng > -----Original Message----- > From: Brian E Carpenter [mailto:brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com] > Sent: Friday, August 12, 2011 6:06 AM > To: 6man > Cc: Jiangsheng; 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 --------------------------------------------------------------------
