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

[Nick Buraglio <[e-mail]>]

Thanks, Jordi.

Are there any reasons from the WG to *not* make these changes?

nb

On Wed, Dec 3, 2025 at 2:39 AM [e-mail] <jordi.palet=
[e-mail]> wrote:

> Hi Brian, all,
>
> Yes, we clarified this in the last meeting, sorry missed explaining in the
> list.
>
> Those documents do not need WG adoption neither to become RFC. The IESG
> just need to see that the WG has no objections, so the IESG can confirm the
> RFC Editor to reclassify the original RFCs.
>
> The documents are needed because the implementation status is very
> important in order to be able to take a decision, even if afterwards the
> documents just expire and nothing else is done with them.
>
> Saludos,
> Jordi
>
> @jordipalet
>
>
> El 2 dic 2025, a las 20:54, Brian E Carpenter <[e-mail]>
> escribió:
>
> 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]
>
> _______________________________________________
> v6ops mailing list -- [e-mail]
> To unsubscribe send an email to [e-mail]
>
>
>
> **********************************************
> IPv4 is over
> Are you ready for the new Internet ?
> 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]
> To unsubscribe send an email to [e-mail]
>