RE: draft-ietf-v6ops-6to4-to-historic (yet again)

["Templin, Fred L" <[e-mail]>]

Ron,

I believe 'draft-ietf-v6ops-6to4-advisory' is both
necessary and sufficient regardless of whether
"historic" is an appropriate characterization. So,
I don't think we need this document.

Thanks - Fred
[e-mail]  

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On 
> Behalf Of Ronald Bonica
> Sent: Monday, July 25, 2011 7:31 AM
> To: [e-mail]
> Subject: draft-ietf-v6ops-6to4-to-historic (yet again)
> 
> Folks,
> 
> After some discussion, the IESG is attempting to determine 
> whether there is IETF consensus to do the following:
> 
> - add a new section to draft-ietf-v6ops-6to4-to-historic
> - publish draft-ietf-v6ops-6to4-to-historic as INFORMATIONAL
> 
> draft-ietf-v6ops-6to4-to-historic will obsolete RFCs 3056 and 
> 3068 and convert their status to HISTORIC. It will also 
> contain a new section describing what it means for RFCs 3056 
> and 3068 to be classified as HISTORIC. The new section will say that:
> 
> - 6-to-4 should not be configured by default on any 
> implementation (hosts, cpe routers, other)
> - vendors will decide whether/when 6-to-4 will be removed 
> from implementations. Likewise, operators will decide 
> whether/when 6-to-4 relays will be removed from their 
> networks. The status of RFCs 3056 and 3068 should not be 
> interpreted as a recommendation to remove 6-to-4 at any 
> particular time.
> 
> 
> draft-ietf-v6ops-6to4-to-historic will not update RFC 2026. 
> While it clarifies the meaning of "HISTORIC" in this 
> particular case, it does not set a precedent for any future case.
> 
> Please post your views on this course of action by August 8, 2011.
> 
> 
>                                                               
>      Ron Bonica
>                                                               
>      <speaking as OPS Area AD>
> _______________________________________________
> Ietf mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
>