Discouraging use of RFC7050 for Discovery of IPv6 Prefix Used for IPv6 Address Synthesis
draft-buraglio-deprecate7050-01

There are plenty of support for adoption, and although there is a bit doubt (from one person), there is no explicit objection.

In favor of adoption:
• Ted Lemon: The document is too long for what it does, IMHO, but it’s the right idea and we can work on the length after adoption.
• Daryll Swer
• Chris Cummings: Using PREF64 seems like the right route going forward, and anything we can do to encourage that seems like a win.
• Jeremy Duncan
• David Farmer: While I support adoption, I think section 5.1 of RFC 8781 and this draft’s recommendation in section 4.2 need reconciliation.
• Tom Costello: it would be great to see more vendors implementing support or RFC8781, this draft clearly contributes to that goal.
• Tim Chown
• Tim Wicinski
• Lorenzo Colitti: We should try to get RFC 8781 into the next revision of the 3GPP requirements

In doubt:
• Nick Heatley: My concern is that in this thread, there is interchange of “discouraging” and “deprecating”. Which is it?
        o Nick Buraglio and Brian Carpenter responded

DNSOP has released this draft to v6ops due to the level of responses to the adoption call. The chairs of each WG, as well as the AD believe that v6ops is the appropriate place for this draft.

This Email serves as the official adoption call for v6ops for this I-D.