Good catch - that seems to be a little obsolete text that's
sitting around in the I-D tracker. The draft itself is
clear that Historic is the intention.
Brian
On 2007-02-28 15:07, Elwyn Davies wrote:
Just to clarify the current situation...The statement below says that the recommendation is for RFC 2766 to be reclassified to experimental.. As is implied by the title of the draft, it actually recommends reclassification to Historic.This error results form a piece of history ;-) - The draft is fundamentally the same as draft-v6ops-natpt-to-exprmntl-03. The change in recommendation has been necessitated because it appears that RFC 2026 does not allow the transition to experimental. In the meantime it has become ever more clear that NAT-PT is of dubious value and could limit the development of IPv6 over time.Regards, Elwyn Brian E Carpenter wrote:I think it's important to publish this document, to make it clear why NAT-PT is a solution of very dubious value. Brian On 2007-02-27 20:14, The IESG wrote:The IESG has received a request from the IPv6 Operations WG (v6ops) to consider the following document:- 'Reasons to Move NAT-PT to Historic Status ' <draft-ietf-v6ops-natpt-to-historic-00.txt> as an Informational RFC This document recommends that the IESG reclassifies RFC 2766 from Standards Track to Experimental status._______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf