Re: Last Call: draft-ietf-v6ops-natpt-to-historic (Reasons to Move NAT-PT to Historic Status) to Informational RFC

Just to clarify the current situation...

The statement below says that the recommendation is for RFC 2766 to be 
reclassified to experimental..  As is implied by the title of the draft, 
it actually recommends reclassification to Historic.

This error results form a piece of history ;-) - The draft is 
fundamentally the same as draft-v6ops-natpt-to-exprmntl-03.  The change 
in recommendation has been necessitated because it appears that RFC 2026 
does not allow the transition to experimental.  In the meantime it has 
become ever more clear that NAT-PT is of dubious value and could limit 
the development of IPv6 over time.

Regards,
Elwyn

Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> I think it's important to publish this document, to make it
> clear why NAT-PT is a solution of very dubious value.
>
>     Brian
>
> On 2007-02-27 20:14, The IESG wrote:
>> The IESG has received a request from the IPv6 Operations WG (v6ops) 
>> to consider the following document:
>>
>> - 'Reasons to Move NAT-PT to Historic Status '
>>    <draft-ietf-v6ops-natpt-to-historic-00.txt> as an Informational RFC
>>
>> This document recommends that the IESG reclassifies RFC 2766 from
>> Standards Track to Experimental status.
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ietf mailing list
> Ietf@ietf.org
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
>

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf