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

[Martin Millnert <[e-mail]>]

Some short-circuiting below.

On Sat, 2011-04-23 at 15:48 -0700, james woodyatt wrote:
> On Apr 23, 2011, at 9:08 AM, [e-mail] wrote:
> 
> > In any case, I think it's quite clear that we need to get a document
> > out which says in no uncertain terms that 6to4 should not be enabled
> > by default.
> 
> I thought 6to4-advisory already said that.  If it doesn't perhaps Brain could be persuaded to amend it.  It's good advice for all the reasons described in that document.
> 

On Thu, 2011-04-14 at 19:30 +1200, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> On 2011-04-14 08:48, Martin Millnert wrote:
> 
> <snip>
> 
> > 3. Disabling automatic 6to4-enabling on hosts would be good, too,
> > like you say (virtually everyone seems to agree about this?).
> > 
<snip>
> >   Brian, 4.1 in draft-ietf-v6ops-6to4-advisory-00: "This is bad
> >   practice - it should always be a conscious decision by a user to
> >   enable 6to4."
> > Would you have a comment on increasing the usage of 2119-wording in
> > the draft?  Is a change of the above "should" to "MUST"
> > inappropriate, the draft being a advisory text, and all?
> 
> Well, it will get published a lot quicker if it is kept as an
> Informational draft without formal language.
> 
> I think you should raise this comment against
> draft-ietf-v6ops-6to4-to-historic-00.txt, which says:
> 
> "2. Implementations capable of acting as 6to4 routers SHOULD NOT
>     enable 6to4 without explicit user configuration.
> ...
> 3.  If implemented in future products 6to4 SHOULD be disabled by
>     default"
> 
>      Brian

Regards,
Martin