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

Tomek Mrugalski <> Mon, 19 August 2013 18:52 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6C8EF11E815A for <>; Mon, 19 Aug 2013 11:52:07 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id JA-m4FIqXtJi for <>; Mon, 19 Aug 2013 11:52:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2a00:1450:4013:c00::22e]) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 365CF21F9D07 for <>; Mon, 19 Aug 2013 11:52:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id c13so2306788eek.5 for <>; Mon, 19 Aug 2013 11:52:05 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20120113; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc:subject :references:in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=Mt9hDblIJ853Wy//htia4YXbfinpEk8bJl3e54DuXRM=; b=wDlBEf8EhIRJs/HSav7SsxsyavDiwJGjuWIexlwqbdD/U1aPrihuEgxaW1vBFBnig0 rDaw/2LSFJYo6YaGu/dXWnlGfPKegA9ndTcrc+Tucn3FpgZgm6/UB7knEppSiVQ7V2fK AryTRrF3ylo5MGKIij/RIVuy5liFnAjySGOiRTYaCZLDBYsUgHmuzGfgaKwI4QtsuOCX iZsTmbZbygU6O6dKAedYGy+90LYKk3L28d4hSs0pFNkdhO+QiRr9uNDHu81Rp9UkBoad ymjGn6gM72Us6e3im6HHo208kJ52SFy95EJfkRzps0x5bwcgNEk80I9CNqbZS8bY4lan FNmA==
X-Received: by with SMTP id w13mr24723529eev.37.1376938325063; Mon, 19 Aug 2013 11:52:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [] ( []) by with ESMTPSA id l47sm19206634eex.15.1969. (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Mon, 19 Aug 2013 11:52:03 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <>
Date: Mon, 19 Aug 2013 20:51:54 +0200
From: Tomek Mrugalski <>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130803 Thunderbird/17.0.8
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "" <>
References: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.4.6
X-TagToolbar-Keys: D20130819205154302
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Cc: "Bernie Volz \(volz\)" <>
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] Advancing RFC 3315 and RFC 3633 to Internet Standard
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 19 Aug 2013 18:52:08 -0000

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. ;-)