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

... or to use Randy's language, "6to4 considered caterpillar snot," but
yes, that is what I was thinking that end of the spectrum looked like.

Doug

On 07/07/2011 01:30, Yoav Nir wrote:
> Extremist-A should be to publish a "6to4 considered dangerous" draft with lots of MUST NOT language.
>  
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ietf-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Martin Rex
> Sent: 06 July 2011 23:50
> To: Doug Barton
> Cc: v6ops@ietf.org; ietf@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-v6ops-6to4-to-historic
> 
> 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
> 
> 
> -Martin
> _______________________________________________
> Ietf mailing list
> Ietf@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
> 
> Scanned by Check Point Total Security Gateway.

-- 

	Nothin' ever doesn't change, but nothin' changes much.
			-- OK Go

	Breadth of IT experience, and depth of knowledge in the DNS.
	Yours for the right price.  :)  http://SupersetSolutions.com/