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

Good catch - that seems to be a little obsolete text that's
sitting around in the I-D tracker. The draft itself is
clear that Historic is the intention.

     Brian

On 2007-02-28 15:07, Elwyn Davies wrote:
> 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