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

[Nick Hilliard <[e-mail]>]

Brian,

On 18/11/2014 19:57, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> This is proposed as a Best Current Practices document from an Ops Area 
> WG, so I think that operational requirements are perfectly in scope.
> The question on the table is whether we do or do not recommend filtering
> the anycast route.

Stepping back back a bit, I briefly skimmed down through rfc-index, and the
only thing that pretty much all the -to-historic RFCs (with the exception
of rfc6563 - A6 deprecation) do is to change the status of the rfc from
Standards Track/BCP to Historic.

The IESG's statement on historic status is here:

> https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/designating-rfcs-as-historic.html

The following text is germane to the discussion in v6ops at the moment:

> A document is labelled Historic when what it describes is no longer 
> considered current: no longer recommended for use.

So the question for this draft is whether it actually needs to go beyond a
single paragraph changing the status of RFC3068 to historic.

Historic status will automatically signal to vendors that the protocol
should be deprecated on their implementations and to operators that they
should let the protocol die away on its own.  This will leave the internet
in a status where end-users can potentially enable it by explicitly going
out of their way to do so, but it will not be available on default
installation.  From what I can tell, this is the LCD for pretty much
everyone who's contributed to this discussion.

Nick