REQ 1:
6434 5.9.1 is already a MUST. This does not need to be repeated.
6434 5.8 is already a MUST. Unless you want to make multipart
ICMP a MUST (why?) as well, this too can be removed.
REQ 6:
re 6434 12.2, this MUST does not appear to be stronger than 12.2's MUST
frankly even 5
On 4 February 2012 01:35, Fred Baker wrote:
>
> On Feb 2, 2012, at 6:57 PM, Erik Kline wrote:
>
>> World IPv6 Launch changes the relevance of this document greatly, I
>> think. Since this would be published after the announcement of World
>> IPv6 Launch, I think the do
World IPv6 Launch changes the relevance of this document greatly, I
think. Since this would be published after the announcement of World
IPv6 Launch, I think the document should be updated to discuss its own
applicability in a post- World IPv6 Launch Internet.
On 2 February 2012 00:09, The IESG
Moving 6to4 to historic does not in any way impact your ability to use
it as you wish.
6to4 support is not part of the IPv6 node requirements, as I
understand it. Therefore I believe that any vendor (OS, router,
otherwise) could deleted 6to4 support in any release and be in
violation of anything,
> Given that each of us reads something different into the definition of
> HISTORIC, is there any hope that this thread will ever converge?
I don't see any "progress".
We may just have to blacklist any resolvers that have 6to4 clients
behind them and leave it at that.
___
>> > Perhaps declaring 6to4 deprecated rather than historic would have a
>> > better chance of consensus.
>>
>> Pardon my ignorance, but where is the document describing the
>> implications of historic{,al} vs deprecated?
>>
>> This (http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2026#section-4.2.4) is well known:
All,
> Perhaps declaring 6to4 deprecated rather than historic would have a
> better chance of consensus.
Pardon my ignorance, but where is the document describing the
implications of historic{,al} vs deprecated?
This (http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2026#section-4.2.4) is well known:
"""
A spe
The youtube folks made the decision to leave the video-serving
hostnames available in blacklist-mode, meaning only very broken
networks won't get s.
This is being watched, and could easily change back. The exact policy
for blacklisting has yet to be fully formalized.
But re: 6to4 in this cas
I'm having a hard time thinking of adequate alternatives terms (but
this purely a personal failing, I'm sure). Recommendations for other
words?
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
