[v6ops] Re: Advancing RFC7757, RFC7755, and RFC7756 to standard

[Brian E Carpenter <[e-mail]>]

As I understand it this would effectively mean WG approval of three drafts:

draft-palet-v6ops-siit-dc-st-00 reclassifies RFC7755 to Standards Track
draft-palet-v6ops-siit-dc-dtm-st-00 reclassifies RFC7756 to Standards Track
draft-palet-v6ops-eam-std-01 reclassifies RFC7757 to Internet Standard

That seems OK to me but I think the AD or the IESG might reasonably ask for a single I-D doing all three things. Or they might decide that nothing needs to be published and simply request the RFC Editor to reclassify the documents. This is quite an unusual case (no errata against any of the documents - the original authors deserve a medal).

Regards/Ngā mihi
    Brian Carpenter

On 03-Dec-25 05:51, Nick Buraglio wrote:
> WG,
> 
> Please take a look and provide any feedback on the advancement of these docs by this Friday (5-Dec-2025)
> 
> Nick and Xipeng
> 
> On Fri, Nov 14, 2025 at 4:51 AM [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]> <jordi.palet=[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
> 
>     Done, tks!
> 
>     Saludos,
>     Jordi
> 
>     @jordipalet
> 
> 
>>     El 14 nov 2025, a las 10:59, [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]> escribió:
>>
>>     Re-,____
>>     __ __
>>     Thanks Jordi.____
>>     __ __
>>     For your question, you may bring [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>where I think is appropriate for such matters.____
>>     __ __
>>     Cheers,____
>>     Med____
>>     __ __
>>     *De :*[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]><jordi.palet=[e-mail] <mailto:jordi.palet=[e-mail]>>
>>     *Envoyé :*vendredi 14 novembre 2025 10:55
>>     *À :*IPv6 Operations <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>
>>     *Objet :*[v6ops] Re: Advancing RFC7757, RFC7755, and RFC7756 to standard____
>>     __ __
>>
>>
>>     Hi Med,____
>>     __ __
>>     Understood and will update both documents in a few minutes.____
>>     __ __
>>     However, I think my questions about the process in the sense of the “hold” time between steps 1 and 2, needs to be clarified as well. May be I’m missing something or this 2 step advancing of documents that do not require updates is a special and not common case.____
>>     __ __
>>
>>     Regards,
>>     Jordi
>>
>>     @jordipalet____
>>
>>
>>
>>     ____
>>
>>         El 14 nov 2025, a las 10:43,[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>escribió:____
>>         __ __
>>         Hi Jordi, all,____
>>         ____
>>         As indicated in the recent v6ops charter (last para) and also clarified by Alvaro, the status change will cover one step at the time.____
>>         ____
>>         I-Ds are not formally required for the status changes in the present case, but it is good that you update your documents to reflect the intended process. Thank you.____
>>         ____
>>         Cheers,____
>>         Med____
>>         ____
>>         *De :*[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]><jordi.palet=[e-mail] <mailto:jordi.palet=[e-mail]>>
>>         *Envoyé :*vendredi 14 novembre 2025 10:22
>>         *À :*IPv6 Operations <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>
>>         *Objet :*[v6ops] Re: Advancing RFC7757, RFC7755, and RFC7756 to standard____
>>         ____
>>
>>
>>         Hi Alvaro, Nick, all,____
>>         ____
>>         In the case of RFC7757 the intent is clear: reclassifying it from Standards Track to Internet Standard.____
>>         ____
>>         In the other two cases, the intent is the same, in two steps:____
>>         1) From Informational to Standards Track____
>>         2) Then from Standards Track to Informational____
>>         ____
>>         My understanding of RFC6410 was that when updating RFC2026, it doesn’t specify the need for the “n months” wait for doing this move from 1 to 2 above. Section 2 of RFC6410 only states the case for accumulate more experience as Proposed Standard before progressing, in the case of a revised specification. However those two documents have been successfully implemented and deployed for multiple years and do not require any revision.____
>>         ____
>>         In my opinion the timing on RFC2026, section 6.2 is not clear after the update by the RFC6410. It talks about 6 months as Proposed Standard, then 4 months as Draft Standard, but the latest one no longer exists. In any case those periods are to ensure opportunity for community review, etc., but in this case, not having changes in the documents, it doesn’t make sense.____
>>         ____
>>         Of course, that’s my interpretation, I may be missing something, but that because, not being clear to me I used this text in the IDs:____
>>         ____
>>
>>         Abstract____
>>
>>         ____
>>
>>            This document reclassifies Stateless IP/ICMP Translation for IPv6____
>>
>>            Data Center Environments ([RFC7755]) to Standards Track and____
>>
>>         *subsquently*to Internet Standard.____
>>
>>         ____
>>         ____
>>         Also in the introduction:____
>>         ____
>>
>>         1.  Introduction____
>>
>>         ____
>>
>>            This document proposes that Stateless IP/ICMP Translation for IPv6____
>>
>>            Data Center Environments ([RFC7755]) is advanced to Standards Track____
>>
>>         *(if this intermediate step is required) and subsequently* to Internet____
>>
>>            Standard, following RFC6410 ([RFC6410]).____
>>
>>         ____
>>         So, in my opinion the IDs allow the IESG both choices:____
>>         a) Only reclassifying from Informational to Standards Track____
>>         b) Reclassifying from Informational to Standards Track and then from Standards Track to Informational (may be after a few months wait time)____
>>         ____
>>         Now, if my interpretation is wrong, of if the IESG prefer to have it done in two steps (1 and 2 above) requiring different IDs for every step and they consider that the actual ID is not valid for that, I can update the IDs, change the title abstract and intro, to reflect that (removing the text in bold in my previous explanation).____
>>         ____
>>         In any case, I think it will be good a clarification of this situation in RFC6410, so future cases similar to those 2 are clearly defined.____
>>         ____
>>
>>         Regards,
>>         Jordi
>>
>>         @jordipalet____
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>         ____
>>
>>             El 13 nov 2025, a las 23:50, Nick Buraglio <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>> escribió:____
>>             ____
>>             Great point, thanks for the clarification. Yes, the intention is to promote each status one step, but only update the status - no editorial changes.
>>
>>             RFC 7757 - Internet Standard
>>             RFC 7755 - Proposed Standard
>>             RFC 7756 - Proposed Standard
>>
>>             Before progressing Jordi should adjust the title of draft-palet-v6ops-siit-dc-std and draft-palet-v6ops-eam-std to reflect that detail. ____
>>             ____
>>             nb____
>>
>>             ____
>>
>>             ____
>>
>>             On Thu, Nov 13, 2025 at 3:42 PM Alvaro Retana <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:____
>>
>>                 Nick:____
>>                 ____
>>                 Hi!____
>>                 ____
>>                 I don’t have an opinion on the RFCs themselves, but I have a comment on the process.____
>>                 ____
>>                 rfc7757 is already on the Standards Track.  Jordi’s draft says that the intent is to change its status to “Internet Standard”, is that what you really want to do?____
>>                 ____
>>                 The other two are, as you mentioned, Informational, but the supporting drafts indicate that the intent is to change the status to “Internet Standard”, which is not possible without first becoming a Proposed Standard.____
>>                 ____
>>                 ____
>>                 The intent mentioned below is to move the RFCs to the Standards Track.  rfc7757 is already there.____
>>                 ____
>>                 Thanks!____
>>                 ____
>>                 Alvaro.____
>>                 ____
>>
>>                 On November 13, 2025 at 3:56:55 PM, Nick Buraglio ([e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>) wrote:____
>>
>>                     All,____
>>
>>                     At IETF 124 we discussed advancing RFC7757, RFC7755, and RFC7756 from Informational to standards track. The advice of the AD was that we make a call for any *objections* to this process. So, please take a look at the following three documents, and if there is consensus from the WG that this is acceptable, we can fairly quickly make the request for change.
>>
>>                     https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-palet-v6ops-eam-std/ <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-palet-v6ops-eam-std/>
>>                     https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-palet-v6ops-siit-dc-std/ <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-palet-v6ops-siit-dc-std/>
>>                     https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-palet-v6ops-siit-dc-dtm-std/ <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-palet-v6ops-siit-dc-dtm-std/>____
>>                     ____
>>                     Please review the documents and voice any concerns about this process. ____
>>                     ____
>>                     Thanks____
>>                     ____
>>                     Nick, Xipeng____
>>                     _______________________________________________
>>                     v6ops mailing list [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>>                     To unsubscribe send an email [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>____
>>
>>             _______________________________________________
>>             v6ops mailing list [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>>             To unsubscribe send an email [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>____
>>
>>         ____
>>
>>
>>         **********************************************
>>         IPv4 is over
>>         Are you ready for the new Internet ?
>>         http://www.theipv6company.com <http://www.theipv6company.com/>
>>         The IPv6 Company
>>
>>         This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.____
>>
>>         ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
>>
>>         Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc____
>>
>>         pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler____
>>
>>         a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration,____
>>
>>         Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou falsifie. Merci.____
>>
>>         __  __
>>
>>         This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged information that may be protected by law;____
>>
>>         they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation.____
>>
>>         If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this message and its attachments.____
>>
>>         As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been modified, changed or falsified.____
>>
>>         Thank you.____
>>
>>     __ __
>>
>>
>>     **********************************************
>>     IPv4 is over
>>     Are you ready for the new Internet ?
>>     http://www.theipv6company.com <http://www.theipv6company.com/>
>>     The IPv6 Company
>>
>>     This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.____
>>
>>     ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
>>     Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc
>>     pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler
>>     a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration,
>>     Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou falsifie. Merci.
>>
>>     This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged information that may be protected by law;
>>     they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation.
>>     If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this message and its attachments.
>>     As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been modified, changed or falsified.
>>     Thank you.
> 
> 
>     **********************************************
>     IPv4 is over
>     Are you ready for the new Internet ?
>     http://www.theipv6company.com <http://www.theipv6company.com>
>     The IPv6 Company
> 
>     This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.
> 
>     _______________________________________________
>     v6ops mailing list -- [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>     To unsubscribe send an email to [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> v6ops mailing list -- [e-mail]
> To unsubscribe send an email to [e-mail]