Re: [dhcwg] Advancing RFC 3315 and RFC 3633 to Internet Standard

[Tomek Mrugalski <[e-mail]>]

On 12.08.2013 21:21, Bernie Volz (volz) wrote:
> During the Berlin IETF-87 DHC WG session, it was suggested that we
> initiate a standards action request to move RFC 3315 (and RFC 3633),
> which are presently Proposed Standards, to Internet Standard. While we
> plan to work on a 3315bis which would merge the work, it was pointed out
> by several people (include our Area Director) that there is technically
> no need to wait for that to advance the standards.
> 
> The requirements for advancement are outlined in RFC 2026 and RFC 6410
> (which removed Draft Standard).
> 
> Per RFC 6410:
> 
> The criteria are:
> 
>    (1) There are at least two independent interoperating implementations
>        with widespread deployment and successful operational experience.
There are many more than just two.

>    (2) There are no errata against the specification that would cause a
>        new implementation to fail to interoperate with deployed ones.
There are known issues, e.g. those described in
draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-stateful-issues, but these are more of annoyance,
rather than interoperability breaking problems. New implementations are
interoperating with existing ones without problems.

>    (3) There are no unused features in the specification that greatly
>        increase implementation complexity.
That's an interesting question. Are there any implementations that
implement the whole RFC3315? I mean really everything: reconfiguration,
reconfigure-key, delayed auth, replay detection, sending CONFIRM when
link state changes, sending DECLINE if DAD fails, rapid-commit,
supporting 32 relays, all 3 duid types etc.?

That's a trick question. I have my own answer for it, but I'd like to
hear WG opinion on that matter.

>    (4) If the technology required to implement the specification
>        requires patented or otherwise controlled technology, then the
>        set of implementations must demonstrate at least two independent,
>        separate and successful uses of the licensing process.
There are no IPRs claimed against RFC3315 and RFC3633.

Ok, so in my opinion all criteria are met.

> Please provide input as to whether you support making this request of
> the IETF/IESG (via the Internet Area Directors) or whether you feel
> there are issues (based on the above criteria). If you feel one document
> is ready but the other isn’t, please let us know about that too.
I feel that we should move forward with this for both 3315 and 3633.
There's almost 7000 RFCs published, but there are only 96 that have
Internet Standard status. I strongly believe that DHCPv6 is one of core
Internet protocols. This status change would reflect that.

With my chair on, I'm disappointed that nobody responded to this mail so
far. Chairs got couple comments off the list, but nobody said anything
on the list. I don't know, perhaps people are not that much interested,
because this move does not have any immediate practical repercussions.
Or perhaps it is a middle of vacation time...

Come on, guys. Saying +1 doesn't take much time. ;-)

Tomek