Re: "RFC4941bis" and draft-gont-6man-non-stable-iids

[Francis Dupont <[e-mail]>]

 In your previous mail you wrote:

>  On 07/19/2017 02:17 PM, Francis Dupont wrote:
>  >>  Among the list of RFCs to be progressed to full std is/was RFC4941
>  >>  ("Privacy Extensions for Stateless Address Autoconfiguration in IPv6").
>  > 
>  > => I even published a document explaining what I thought about the
>  > whole idea (and I didn't change my mind).
>  
>  COuld you please provide a reference?

=> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-dupont-ipv6-rfc3041harmful-05
Note my concerns were integrated into RFC 4941 so they should look
like pretty basic/old now.

>  > Now RFC4941bis is currently heavily deployed so it is far too soon
>  > to try to obsolete it.
>  
>  I'm not necessarily thinking about obsoleting it. This is, say, an open
>  question. I do think that you cannot move RFC4941 to STD, though.

=> I understand well it is a different question but IMHO your
ultimate goal is to obsolete RFC 4941 (with other words I should not
believe you if you answer you never had this idea :-).

>  > When I went to the mic at a previous IETF meeting some years ago
>  > to ask the IPv6 specs to be raise to full standard with at first
>  > the IPv6 protocol itself (done, THANKS!!!). If the RFC4941 is left
>  > at the border of the road I shan't be sad...
>  
>  I don't think RFC4941 meet the criteria for elevating a document to STD,
>  though.

=> so at least we don't disagree...

Regards

[e-mail]