> PLEASE Please please read the draft before commenting. It's very > short, less than 500 words, and I anticipate a lot of people > having strong feelings about it. I would really rather not waste > time arguing about things it doesn't say. > > To that end, I've also written a blog post, explaining in a > level of detail I thought inappropriate for the draft: > [1]http://www.wleecoyote.com/blog/ipv4-historic.htm
It seems to me that the implications of Section 3 make it that this draft should not be published. I think 'It does mean that any Standards Track RFC with a Normative reference to RFC791 is Historic.' is also problematic. If you can't develop new standards that involve the protocol that carries more than 50% of the world internet traffic, then you are doing something wrong. _______________________________________________ sunset4 mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sunset4
