On Jul 30, 2013, at 5:19 AM, Randy Bush <ra...@psg.com> wrote: >> At the mike a moment ago, I referred to an existing formal definition >> of "deprecate". > > welll, you keep saying it is a formal definition, implying that it > applies to all uses of the term. but, in fact, the reference is merely > how it is used in some snmp glorp.
A example of deprecation that is close to what we are discussing regarding fragmentation can be found in: RFC3879 Deprecating Site Local Addresses 4. Deprecation This document formally deprecates the IPv6 site-local unicast prefix defined in [RFC3513], i.e., 1111111011 binary or FEC0::/10. The special behavior of this prefix MUST no longer be supported in new implementations. The prefix MUST NOT be reassigned for other use except by a future IETF standards action. Future versions of the addressing architecture [RFC3513] will include this information. However, router implementations SHOULD be configured to prevent routing of this prefix by default. Bob > > otoh, the draft under abuse, could indeed be more specific. > > randy > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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 --------------------------------------------------------------------
