Hi Sandy, Wearing just the iana-objects author hat.
It would require a small amount of editing, which in turn will ultimately result in the prefixes (as termed 'deprecated') being considered unallocated - and therefore an AS0-ROA SHOULD (eventually) be issued for 2002::/16 and 192.88.99.0/24. The question I have is about trying to intrude on the RFC-Editor queue now, while the iana-objects is having all the boxes ticked and is well ahead of draft-ietf-v6ops-6to4-to-historic-04, or wait for publication of v6ops-6to4-to-historic and (as already covered in iana-objects) issue an update. Cheers Terry On 7/06/11 2:48 AM, "Sandra Murphy" <sandra.mur...@sparta.com> wrote: > I'm curious. > > Could the authors of draft-ietf-sidr-iana-objects comment on whether the > action mentioned below would have any effect on the rules for IANA issued > objects wrt RFC3068 prefixes? > > --Sandy, speaking as wg chair > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > Date: Mon, 6 Jun 2011 09:23:26 -0700 > From: The IESG <iesg-secret...@ietf.org> > Reply-To: i...@ietf.org > To: IETF-Announce <ietf-annou...@ietf.org> > Cc: v6...@ietf.org > Subject: Last Call: <draft-ietf-v6ops-6to4-to-historic-04.txt> (Request to > move > Connection of IPv6 Domains via IPv4 Clouds (6to4) to Historic status) to > Informational RFC > > > The IESG has received a request from the IPv6 Operations WG (v6ops) to > consider the following document: > - 'Request to move Connection of IPv6 Domains via IPv4 Clouds (6to4) to > Historic status' > <draft-ietf-v6ops-6to4-to-historic-04.txt> as an Informational RFC > > The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits > final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the > i...@ietf.org mailing lists by 2011-06-20. Exceptionally, comments may be > sent to i...@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the > beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting. > > Abstract > > > Experience with the "Connection of IPv6 Domains via IPv4 Clouds > (6to4)" IPv6 transitioning mechanism has shown that the mechanism is > unsuitable for widespread deployment and use in the Internet. This > document requests that RFC3056 and the companion document "An Anycast > Prefix for 6to4 Relay Routers" RFC3068 are moved to historic status. > > > > > The file can be obtained via > http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-v6ops-6to4-to-historic/ > > IESG discussion can be tracked via > http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-v6ops-6to4-to-historic/ > > > No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D. > > > _______________________________________________ > IETF-Announce mailing list > ietf-annou...@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-announce > _______________________________________________ > sidr mailing list > sidr@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr _______________________________________________ sidr mailing list sidr@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr
