IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [internet-drafts@ietf.org: New Version Notification for draft-jones-6man-historic-rfc2675-00.txt]

Nick Hilliard <nick@foobar.org> Wed, 08 May 2019 13:01 UTC

Return-Path: <nick@foobar.org>
X-Original-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 321F11200FB for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 8 May 2019 06:01:54 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id b_qLiKyA6MvD for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 8 May 2019 06:01:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.netability.ie (mail.netability.ie [IPv6:2a03:8900:0:100::5]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E9A591200F6 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Wed, 8 May 2019 06:01:51 -0700 (PDT)
X-Envelope-To: ipv6@ietf.org
Received: from cupcake.local (089-101-195156.ntlworld.ie [89.101.195.156] (may be forged)) (authenticated bits=0) by mail.netability.ie (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPSA id x48D1k2h057458 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Wed, 8 May 2019 14:01:47 +0100 (IST) (envelope-from nick@foobar.org)
X-Authentication-Warning: cheesecake.ibn.ie: Host 089-101-195156.ntlworld.ie [89.101.195.156] (may be forged) claimed to be cupcake.local
Subject: Re: [internet-drafts@ietf.org: New Version Notification for draft-jones-6man-historic-rfc2675-00.txt]
To: Tom Jones <tom@erg.abdn.ac.uk>
Cc: ipv6@ietf.org
References: <20190508125743.GA19360@tom-desk.erg.abdn.ac.uk>
From: Nick Hilliard <nick@foobar.org>
Message-ID: <7900dbd8-549e-e777-1c6d-daec7a6f0fab@foobar.org>
Date: Wed, 08 May 2019 14:01:45 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.14; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 PostboxApp/6.1.15
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20190508125743.GA19360@tom-desk.erg.abdn.ac.uk>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/guXy0J0qCcr32fk43LU2td59OdM>
X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "IPv6 Maintenance Working Group \(6man\)" <ipv6.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ipv6>, <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ipv6/>
List-Post: <mailto:ipv6@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6>, <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 08 May 2019 13:01:54 -0000

Tom Jones wrote on 08/05/2019 13:57:
> We have put this together to change the status of RFC2675 to Historic
> and would like to request discussion in the working group.

This looks sensible.  If something has never really been implemented in 
the first 25 years of a protocol's existence, and adds complication, 
there doesn't seem to be a compelling reason to keep it lying around.

Nick

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email