IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Tore Anderson <tore.anderson@redpill-linpro.com> Wed, 27 July 2011 06:10 UTC

Return-Path: <tore.anderson@redpill-linpro.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 A235821F8B25 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 26 Jul 2011 23:10:53 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
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 AS9KLnrRE3RC for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 26 Jul 2011 23:10:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mailhub.linpro.no (mailhub.linpro.no [87.238.49.141]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B20D621F84E8 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Tue, 26 Jul 2011 23:10:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (mailhub.linpro.no [87.238.49.141]) by mailhub.linpro.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id 63DCFC4040; Wed, 27 Jul 2011 08:10:51 +0200 (CEST)
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at linpro.no
Received: from mailhub.linpro.no ([87.238.49.141]) by localhost (mailhub.linpro.no [87.238.49.141]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id cNqw-rkFj21i; Wed, 27 Jul 2011 08:10:51 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from zimbra.redpill-linpro.com (claudius.linpro.no [87.238.49.234]) by mailhub.linpro.no (Postfix) with ESMTP; Wed, 27 Jul 2011 08:10:51 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by zimbra.redpill-linpro.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3E401103800D; Wed, 27 Jul 2011 08:10:51 +0200 (CEST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at claudius.linpro.no
Received: from zimbra.redpill-linpro.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (zimbra.redpill-linpro.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Ux1ivxnZhydb; Wed, 27 Jul 2011 08:10:50 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from echo.linpro.no (v6rprx1-osl2.i.bitbit.net [10.20.126.4]) by zimbra.redpill-linpro.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 9C053103800A; Wed, 27 Jul 2011 08:10:50 +0200 (CEST)
Message-ID: <4E2FABEA.2030905@redpill-linpro.com>
Date: Wed, 27 Jul 2011 08:10:50 +0200
From: Tore Anderson <tore.anderson@redpill-linpro.com>
Organization: Redpill Linpro AS
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:5.0) Gecko/20110707 Thunderbird/5.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Ronald Bonica <rbonica@juniper.net>
Subject: Re: draft-ietf-v6ops-6to4-to-historic (yet again)
References: <13205C286662DE4387D9AF3AC30EF456D3F431D11F@EMBX01-WF.jnpr.net>
In-Reply-To: <13205C286662DE4387D9AF3AC30EF456D3F431D11F@EMBX01-WF.jnpr.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Wed, 27 Jul 2011 08:53:48 -0700
Cc: "ietf@ietf.org" <ietf@ietf.org>
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, 27 Jul 2011 06:10:53 -0000

* Ronald Bonica

> 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.

I support this approach.

Best regards,
-- 
Tore Anderson
Redpill Linpro AS - http://www.redpill-linpro.com

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email