Re: [v6ops] new draft: draft-troan-v6ops-6to4-update

[Keith Moore <[e-mail]>]

On Aug 11, 2011, at 12:12 PM, Cameron Byrne wrote:

> Is there a need for this to be standards track or even a working group document?
> 
> I strongly feel the IETF has spent too much time on this and any more
> time is waste of effort.
> 
> RFC6343 is good enough.

Several people have expressed a strong desire for a document that "updates" RFCs 3056 and 3068.  From a process point-of-view, it's not clear (to me) that such an update has to be a standards-track document.  But having it be standards-track would make it clear to the public that the statement represents (rough) IETF consensus.

From a process POV, this doesn't have to be a v6ops WG document.  It could be treated as an individual submission and given a 4-week community-wide Last Call.    That decision is up to the WG chairs and AD.     But even if it were treated as an individual submission, IESG would certainly ask v6ops participants to comment on it.   

For those who wish to minimize the amount of discussion on the v6ops list, comments to the authors (without cc'ing the v6ops list) are certainly welcome.

Keith