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

[Brian E Carpenter <[e-mail]>]

On 28/01/2015 09:04, David Farmer wrote:
> On 1/26/15 19:13 , Brian E Carpenter wrote:
>> On 27/01/2015 13:43, Lorenzo Colitti wrote:
>>> On Tue, Jan 27, 2015 at 9:34 AM, Brian E Carpenter <
>>> [e-mail]> wrote:
>>>> Well, reviewing the emails I've archived, I see mild support for
>>>> formally obsoleting it and no strong opposition.
>>>>
>>> I suppose my question was really only procedural: *can* we even obsolete an
>>> individual submission? It's not a document based on IETF consensus, so if
>>> IETF consensus was not necessary to publish it, then how can IETF consensus
>>> be sufficient to obsolete it?
>>
>> Terminology alert: it's an *independent* submission, not an *individual*
>> submission (the latter is an IETF stream draft but with no associated WG).
>>
>> So, your question is valid. I suggest we leave it as "obsoletes" for now
>> and let somebody with a higher IETF pay grade decide. Next time I bump
>> into the Independent Series Editor (which will be later this week
>> in Rotorua NZ, as it happens) I will ask if there's a precedent.
> 
> I think a metadata link obsoleting 6732 is appropriate either way.
> 
> 6to4-PMT is basically a special case anycast relay and return relay bolted together and to a 66 prefix translator.  So, would a
> 6to4-PMT version of the relay operator recommendation be applicable.
> 
>   Current operators of a 6to4-PMT relay SHOULD review the information
>   in the present document, and then consider carefully whether the
>   6to4-PMT relay can be discontinued as traffic diminishes.
> 
> Or, maybe better yet consolidate the three different relay operator recommendations into a generic and unified 6to4 relay
> recommendation for all relay type, like;
> 
> Current operators of all 6to4 relays (anycast using 192.88.99.1, return using 2002::/16 , or 6to4-PMT) SHOULD review the
> information in [RFC6343] and the present document, and then consider carefully whether the 6to4 relay can be discontinued as
> traffic diminishes.

I'm reluctant to do that, because the decisions about forward and reverse relays
are quite independent and should not be viewed as a single decision point.

   Brian

> 
> The further discussion of 6to4-PMT got me thinking.
> 
> Thanks.