Re: [v6ops] reclassify 464XLAT as standard instead of info

["t.petch" <[e-mail]>]

----- Original Message -----
From: "Fred Baker" <[e-mail]>
To: "JORDI PALET MARTINEZ" <[e-mail]>
Cc: <[e-mail]>
Sent: Tuesday, September 19, 2017 9:27 PM

> Hmm. Wearing the chair hat, but not making pronouncements. Thinking
through the options and considerations.

Fred

What was the final resolution of the IPR claim by China Mobile relating
to this work that caused much bemusement at the time of the approval
thereof and which also may have been a factor in changing the status
from BCP to Informational?

Tom Petch

>
> Some reading matter:
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2026#section-5
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6410
> RFC 2026 section 4 as updated by 6410.
>
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6782
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7269
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7335
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7445
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7849
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7934
>
> I would agree that informational status is probably inappropriate at
this point. I'll note that the progression is not all that unusual; GRE,
for example, was originally informational (RFC 1701), was taken to
Proposed Standard in RFC 2784, and has been updated by RFC 2890. If it
were taken to Internet Standard, we would need to demonstrate the points
raised in https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6410#section-2.2.
>
> What gives me pause in using the PS/IS standards track is the issue of
interoperation of multiple implementations. I'm not entirely sure what
that means in an operational procedure or service, which is in my
perception what 464XLAT is. If that is the interoperation of multiple
networks, it might be the interoperation of an IPv6-only (subset of a)
network with other IPv4 networks, as the interoperation of that same
network with IPv6 networks or networks with IPv6 capabilities doesn't
require such services. The description of a BCP in RFC 2026 sounds more
like what we're looking at here.
>
> My thought at the moment (which I can be argued out of) is that the
right status is BCP, and that we would want an updated document that
captures anything we have learned since RFC 6877 was published.
>
> > On Sep 19, 2017, at 5:23 AM, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ
<[e-mail]> wrote:
> >
> > Hi all,
> >
> > RFC6877 (464XLAT) is an informational document.
> >
> > However, this transition mechanism is the one that has a bigger
deployment in terms of number of subscribers using it (hundreds of
millions), which I think is even more than ALL the other transition
mechanism together.
> >
> > Doesn’t make any sense, in my opinion to keep it as an informational
document, while we have many others that are standards track and don’t
have such level of deployment.
> >
> > I was commenting this last week with a couple of the co-authors of
this document, and they have the same opinion.
> >
> > So, should we aim to do this?
> >
> > Can we even consider moving it to STD?
> >
> > Regards,
> > Jordi
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > **********************************************
> > IPv4 is over
> > Are you ready for the new Internet ?
> > http://www.consulintel.es
> > 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]
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops
>
> _______________________________________________
> v6ops mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops
>