IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-v6ops-6to4-to-historic

Scott Kitterman <scott@kitterman.com> Wed, 06 July 2011 20:57 UTC

Return-Path: <scott@kitterman.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E70E321F8A77 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 6 Jul 2011 13:57:52 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id sCdFTnvTJTWJ for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 6 Jul 2011 13:57:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mailout00.controlledmail.com (mailout00.controlledmail.com [72.81.252.19]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A9F6E21F8A74 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Wed, 6 Jul 2011 13:57:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mailout00.controlledmail.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mailout00.controlledmail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B199538C101; Wed, 6 Jul 2011 16:57:48 -0400 (EDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=kitterman.com; s=2007-00; t=1309985869; bh=QPUb2L3LoQBXMDJbtbhp1ysI2si9b4t2VpEZxGufv1c=; h=From:To:Subject:Date:References:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:Message-Id; b=DV1RI5gADj+lm3+wRfUtdjy27s7Ozgw7SGlCw8Fth9gidJu5YFK4sHDzO+rJ1zYQv T6cwujvqNowe86SHjP0TBLnhdIIY95PzjZO0X4QG4tJV4uYLIDqErXAiHpjZBS5ehH sKNFXYrQikCnCCN/47SgKs/dNwxpJnhGnIxFIf2M=
From: Scott Kitterman <scott@kitterman.com>
To: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-v6ops-6to4-to-historic
Date: Wed, 06 Jul 2011 16:57:47 -0400
User-Agent: KMail/1.13.6 (Linux/2.6.38-8-generic-pae; KDE/4.6.2; i686; ; )
References: <201107062049.p66Knlfi026308@fs4113.wdf.sap.corp>
In-Reply-To: <201107062049.p66Knlfi026308@fs4113.wdf.sap.corp>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-Id: <201107061657.47341.scott@kitterman.com>
X-AV-Checked: ClamAV using ClamSMTP
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 06 Jul 2011 20:57:53 -0000

On Wednesday, July 06, 2011 04:49:47 PM Martin Rex wrote:
> Doug Barton wrote:
> > On 07/06/2011 13:14, Martin Rex wrote:
> > > Doug Barton wrote:
> > > > I was however willing to accept "historic" as a reasonable
> > > > compromise.
> > > 
> > > "historic" as a compromise?  Between which two positions?
> > 
> > Nuking it from orbit, and erecting a statue in its honor?
> 
> Which to options that are actually available to the IESG?  I see
> 
> extremist-A:  nuke/kill 6to4 by moving 3056/3068 to historic
> 
> compromise:   move 3056/3068 off Standards Track,
>               i.e. by reclassifying them as Experimental
> 
> blocked:      leave 3056/3068 at Proposed, publish only 6to4-advisory
> 
> extremist-B:  stick fingers in ears, sing la-la-la, pretend 6to4 is perfect

I think I've read this entire thread and I don't recall anyone advocating 
extremist-B.

Scott K

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email