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

[Martin Rex <[e-mail]>]

Scott Kitterman wrote:
> 
> 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.

Neither do I.

The above just lists the entire spectrum of options for the IESG decision
after the IETF LC for the two documents (6to4-advisory, 6to4-to-historic)
had ended, and there was the unresolved procedural issue from IETF LC
against 6to4-to-historic based on the protocol action of
moving 3056,3068 to historic.

An option to undo the past is not available to IESG, such as travelling
back in time and preventing 3056 and 3068 from being developed.

-Martin