Subject: Re: draft-ietf-v6ops-6to4-to-historic (yet again)

From: [email-masked] (Noel Chiappa)
Date: Mon, 25 Jul 2011 18:05:12 -0400 (EDT)

> From: Ronald Bonica <[email-masked]>

    > draft-ietf-v6ops-6to4-to-historic will obsolete RFCs 3056 and 3068 and
    > convert their status to HISTORIC. 

I think we should only mark things as HISTORIC as a recognition of _what has
already happened_ out in the world, not as an attempt to _make something
happen_.

If we want to tell people to stop using a protocol, we should be direct and
produce a document that says 'this protocol should always be off by default',
or 'stop using this protocol', or 'remove this protocol from your products', or
whatever.

    > While it clarifies the meaning of "HISTORIC" in this particular case, it
    > does not set a precedent for any future case.

In other words, this document is doing something with "HISTORIC" that isn't the
normal, this is a special case. I think this is a bad idea.

	Noel

---

From: Ted Faber <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 25 Jul 2011 20:08:43 -0600

> already happened_ out in the world, not as an attempt to _make something

What he said.
-- 
Ted Faber
http://www.isi.edu/~faber           PGP: http://www.isi.edu/~faber/pubkeys.asc
Unexpected attachment on this mail? See http://www.isi.edu/~faber/FAQ.html#SIG

---

From: "Randy Presuhn" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 25 Jul 2011 20:50:48 -0700

Hi -

> From: "Noel Chiappa" <[email-masked]>
> To: <[email-masked]>
> Cc: <[email-masked]>
> Sent: Monday, July 25, 2011 3:05 PM
> Subject: Re: draft-ietf-v6ops-6to4-to-historic (yet again)
...
> already happened_ out in the world, not as an attempt to _make something
...

Though I think this is a reasonable position, there are examples from
history, such as the "historicization" of RFC 1227, that clearly demonstrate
that the IETF has historically not consistently maintained this position.

Randy

---

From: Mykyta Yevstifeyev <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 26 Jul 2011 06:53:48 +0300

26.07.2011 1:05, Noel Chiappa wrote:
>      >  From: Ronald Bonica<[email-masked]>
+1.  Should Historic status definition be clarified, it should be done 
in a separate document, or in the revision of RFC 2026.  See my previous 
message.

Mykyta
>
> 	Noel
> _______________________________________________
> Ietf mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
>