IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Chuck Anderson <cra@WPI.EDU> Sat, 24 January 2015 14:06 UTC

Return-Path: <cra@WPI.EDU>
X-Original-To: v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BF0231A1A02 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 24 Jan 2015 06:06:24 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.412
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.412 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_40=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id dHeaPMZqChFF for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 24 Jan 2015 06:06:21 -0800 (PST)
Received: from MAIL1.WPI.EDU (MAIL1.WPI.EDU [130.215.36.91]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 080081A1AA5 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Sat, 24 Jan 2015 06:06:16 -0800 (PST)
Received: from MAIL1.WPI.EDU (MAIL1.WPI.EDU [130.215.36.91]) by MAIL1.WPI.EDU (8.15.1/8.15.1) with ESMTP id t0OE6GH9012357 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Sat, 24 Jan 2015 09:06:16 -0500
X-DKIM: Sendmail DKIM Filter v2.8.3 MAIL1.WPI.EDU t0OE6GH9012357
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=wpi.edu; s=_dkim; t=1422108376; bh=Q9+m6mv89c4+LkdYMPa0MZDF2Jhn6kJUQG/qezuEbVo=; h=Date:From:To:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:In-Reply-To; b=BFsflACh5JoFE87d+HhQRTmnMVXRB8l6Z91E2oe/JQCg2SaWHly+y1CLz0CYdhalv 7yN4qE0KHWnguvMDieRiziygb45GrRYg6PNHp/FfwRy63U8bdk7QiAyDc8ErmbSHGP r2TIVRKk/cJupyU8oGgA96cBNlQx2ZefzM5w9LtE=
Received: from MX3.WPI.EDU (mx3.wpi.edu [130.215.36.147]) by MAIL1.WPI.EDU (8.15.1/8.15.1) with ESMTP id t0OE6GZ0012354 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Sat, 24 Jan 2015 09:06:16 -0500
Received: from angus.ind.WPI.EDU (ANGUS.IND.WPI.EDU [130.215.130.21]) by MX3.WPI.EDU (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id t0OE6Fvv013416 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Sat, 24 Jan 2015 09:06:15 -0500 (envelope-from cra@WPI.EDU)
Received: from angus.ind.WPI.EDU (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by angus.ind.WPI.EDU (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id t0OE6En0030120 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Sat, 24 Jan 2015 09:06:14 -0500
Received: (from cra@localhost) by angus.ind.WPI.EDU (8.14.4/8.14.4/Submit) id t0OE6EO2030119 for v6ops@ietf.org; Sat, 24 Jan 2015 09:06:14 -0500
X-Authentication-Warning: angus.ind.WPI.EDU: cra set sender to cra@WPI.EDU using -f
Date: Sat, 24 Jan 2015 09:06:14 -0500
From: Chuck Anderson <cra@WPI.EDU>
To: v6ops@ietf.org
Message-ID: <20150124140613.GQ18618@angus.ind.WPI.EDU>
References: <54BEB741.8060709@gmail.com> <248188907.4210717.1421800222689.JavaMail.yahoo@jws106136.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> <CAKD1Yr1Ec7=g5VNZtbBw6Tutr2oi-1_SmcEJu_JCDKUvSGsAUA@mail.gmail.com> <CADhXe51h1ERcq8i=JJNX0PLwZ6Mb7Quw0W53K7fAP4omVioD7w@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <CADhXe51h1ERcq8i=JJNX0PLwZ6Mb7Quw0W53K7fAP4omVioD7w@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-12-10)
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/orqXg_KisTG7jANWayog2Qc8jBc>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-v6ops-6to4-to-historic WGLC
X-BeenThere: v6ops@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: v6ops discussion list <v6ops.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/v6ops>, <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/v6ops/>
List-Post: <mailto:v6ops@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops>, <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 24 Jan 2015 14:06:24 -0000

On Wed, Jan 21, 2015 at 11:47:23AM -0800, James Woodyatt wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 21, 2015 at 4:16 AM, Lorenzo Colitti <lorenzo@google.com> wrote:
> 
> >
> >    1. Is it necessary to formally deprecate RFC 6732? It's an individual
> >    submission. (Not that I support RFC 6732 in any way, to be sure.)
> >
> > Rather than ask if it's necessary, I'd prefer to ask if there is any sane
> reason to think RFC 6732 is anything more than an historical curiosity.
> 
> If 6to4-PMT isn't of any more than historical interest, then let's please
> move its category to Historic so that its applicability will not be
> confused with other practical non-standard protocol specifications
> published by IETF in the Informational category, many of which rightly
> enjoy widespread deployment today, e.g. PPPoE.

+1 — I agree with Lorenzo’s comments 2. and 3. and James' comment here.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email