[v6ops] Re: summary of docs related to NAT64 - status

[Michael Richardson <[e-mail]>]

"[e-mail]" wrote:
    >>> 2) RFC7755 (SIIT-DC: Stateless IP/ICMP Translation for IPv6 Data Center
    >>> Environments), it was Informational. Has been advanced to
    >>> PS. 2026-02-02. It can be further advanced to IS after 6 months (I plan
    >>> to do so if the WG agree).
    >>
    >> So my question about this list/summary is whether some or all of these will
    >> go into STD103.  Or is there a set of STD that we are creating?
    >>
    >> I think that (if worth advancing) that all of the things you list belong in
    >> STD103, but my opinion is not strong.
    >>
    >> I looked in std-index.txt for STD that had multiple documents, as when there
    >> is a single document it is quite clear what to title the STD.
    >>
    >> First one was: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/std05
    >> and it has no "title" actually when one looks at the rfc-editor page for it.

    > I was not aware that multiple PS can become a single IS. Not sure about
    > the rationale for that, but in my opinion is much clear to have a
    > specific STD per each document.

Not exactly: multiple IS can be part of a single STD.
Like std05 is:
  0005 Internet Protocol. J. Postel. September 1981. (Format: TXT=241903
     HTML= bytes) (Also RFC0791, RFC0792, RFC0919, RFC0922, RFC0950,
     RFC1112)

  0078 Simple Network Management Protocol (SNMP) Security. J.
     Schoenwaelder, D. Harrington, W. Hardaker. February 2014. (Format:
     TXT=315050 HTML= bytes) (Also RFC5343, RFC5590, RFC5591, RFC6353)

  0095 RDAP. A. Newton, B. Ellacott, N. Kong, S. Hollenbeck, M.
     Blanchet. (Format: bytes) (Also RFC7480, RFC7481, RFC9082, RFC9083,
     RFC9224)

Might be a few other examples I missed in my visual scan.

... I would have put STD0087 (PMTU, RFC8201) in with STD0086 (IPv6), so that's
weird to me.

    >> Oops.  I guess STDs don't exactly have titles, although std-index.txt does
    >> list something, and the titles in std-index are actually quite apropo.
    >> I'll bring this up in RSWG.
    >>
    >> I think that the point of the above was really: what is the title of this
    >> effort going to be.  It matters because people search whether with a search
    >> engine or their eyes.
    >>

    > We didn’t that way in 6man for the several IPv6 IS docs, and I’m not
    > sure if that’s a WG decision or IESG or RFC Editor, but as said, I
    > prefer avoid confusions and have one STD for each document.

Yeah, STD 86/87, and I didn't see if there were others I would have put into STD86.

--
]               Never tell me the odds!                 | ipv6 mesh networks [
]   Michael Richardson, Sandelman Software Works        |    IoT architect   [
]     [e-mail]  http://www.sandelman.ca/        |   ruby on rails    [
]       My working hours and your working hours may be different.            [
]  Please do not feel obligated to reply outside your normal working hours   [