Fwd: Protocol Action: Internet Control Message Protocol (ICMPv6) for the Internet Protocol Version 6 (IPv6) Specification to Internet Standard

[Bob Hinden <[e-mail]>]

FYI

> Begin forwarded message:
> 
> From: The IESG <[e-mail]>
> Subject: Protocol Action: Internet Control Message Protocol (ICMPv6) for the Internet Protocol Version 6 (IPv6) Specification to Internet Standard
> Date: May 26, 2017 at 9:15:28 AM PDT
> To: "IETF-Announce" <[e-mail]>
> Cc: [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], The IESG <[e-mail]>, [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]
> Reply-To: [e-mail]
> 
> The IESG has approved changing the status of the following document:
> - Internet Control Message Protocol (ICMPv6) for the Internet Protocol
> Version 6 (IPv6) Specification
>  (rfc4443) to Internet Standard
> 
> This protocol action is documented at:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/status-change-icmpv6-dns-ipv6-to-internet-standard/
> 
> A URL of the affected document is:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc4443/
> 
> Status Change Details:
> 
> RFC4443 "Internet Control Message Protocol (ICMPv6) for the Internet
> Protocol Version 6 (IPv6) Specification" currently has an IETF standards
> status of Draft Standard, which is now an obsolete status. This status
> change requests reclassifying it to Internet Standard.
> 
> (1) There are at least two independent interoperating implementations
>       with widespread deployment and successful operational experience.
> 
> RFC4443 has been widely implemented:
>          https://www.ipv6ready.org/db/index.php/public/?o=4
> 
> (2) There are no errata against the specification that would cause a
>       new implementation to fail to interoperate with deployed ones.
> RFC4443 has 4 errata, none of which would cause new interoperability
>      problems.
> 
> (3) There are no unused features in the specification that greatly
>       increase implementation complexity.
> 
> There are no unused features.
> 
> (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.
> 
> N/A
> 
> RFC3596 "DNS Extensions to Support IP Version 6" currently has an IETF
> standards status of Draft Standard, which is now an obsolete status. This
> status change requests reclassifying it to Internet Standard.
> 
> (1) There are at least two independent interoperating implementations
>       with widespread deployment and successful operational experience.
> 
> RFC3596 has been widely implemented:
>          https://www.ipv6ready.org/db/index.php/public/?o=4
> 
> (2) There are no errata against the specification that would cause a
>       new implementation to fail to interoperate with deployed ones.
> 
> There are no errata filed against RFC3596
> 
> (3) There are no unused features in the specification that greatly
>       increase implementation complexity.
> 
> There are no unused features.
> 
> (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.
> 
> N/A
> 
> Personnel
> 
>   Suresh Krishnan is the responsible Area Director.
> 
> 
>