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

[Sabahattin Gucukoglu <[e-mail]>]

On 25 Jul 2011, at 17:30, Ronald Bonica wrote:
> 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.

This scares me.  I was on the point of saying, "But none of that stuff makes it historic!" but you then change what "Historic" means, so that I can no longer be certain ...

I'd like to see the text, but my feeling is that, no, I will not approve.  That document is too loaded with dubious claims and 6to4 hate for my liking.  And the advisory document is already perfect for expressing the _real_ problems, that really _do_ exist, for (current) 6to4 deployment.  Once again, "Historic" (in whatever sense meant) is just too strong an applied label to something which _can_ be used.  I have a very hard time seeing the sense in this document.

But let's see the text.  Perhaps you can redefine the word "Historic" in a new and interesting way.

Cheers,
Sabahattin