IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Fred Baker <fredbaker.ietf@gmail.com> Thu, 21 September 2017 01:00 UTC

Return-Path: <fredbaker.ietf@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B8042132944 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 20 Sep 2017 18:00:45 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.699
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.699 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Nj2ZzM3Q_IyQ for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 20 Sep 2017 18:00:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-io0-x22e.google.com (mail-io0-x22e.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c06::22e]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5B93113293A for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Wed, 20 Sep 2017 18:00:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-io0-x22e.google.com with SMTP id i197so7542464ioe.9 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Wed, 20 Sep 2017 18:00:44 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=ENmPO5nz3yOojsOWAL/4lwjf3YTJEdQ5lLNzGyQQ5/A=; b=d/LaV/q8hfoKRHyuv0uvWVHXKuiR8HzU96UilTHqoFXDbKdMlvAo5v2IF9n6Y1Clt/ rH/kM1NRlipGfLW77Otv1WYZ4EV3C+mgc9qAApLDZTwFwXxu6pN2ulJoHpsnhHtz2bdq a10QRfaYkppuTd/G9EoX96YjqlygmpapUZeECsq9M/d09aS6KnLsFYiqaH7OmL0mnt4I 6AUjOEm+gu5ypG2ZCpRhxzOdrIDLpv9l8MsKzL/Pbo7rvKAD1jMAQazCFiJHxpgzHBUz HE9sCikEasKP/0bJ6+DpEQyFuRMabomSnS/mLzSYUJ/VxR5RddqddMHkfkNMw/dHrbHL 3tgQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=ENmPO5nz3yOojsOWAL/4lwjf3YTJEdQ5lLNzGyQQ5/A=; b=obmHidve6gD1CCQGoTqCA3QFdirZkuuDKUIHQGv5mW2mkXTHUSIvE9YMG+RC60Tlde pfCF477wxgShoFZVHQf8MXVOxl7JEI58XB6UAJ6rotH0Kxmj/7KOL9cLEW5j5NqW1n6D P4MTvv1LQtMFPjIgWQWo41S8VeyAdX/eKhrg5b7bI5IULZb//2eHL20+CNYcuDTQBGXB SoArAbmkSlm42/rOVDVy9IPvqD8IhgVy5Uzr8zdqbZSIgi2duGKacPofz8soG3EreXCU 9I440NJ6+rg7nJLcPn2ZtwOH8BrnUp72ZjqgbPZuDaS8EqzLsIhB10rBCUn9ZTrAHx/1 df2A==
X-Gm-Message-State: AHPjjUhMcnqUieIXUS+dKeHdRYVT9iN3jFWlKm8IggzrtS9Y8KIDKjcZ WrcvYx34gnv+7EGOOcDqNZU=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AOwi7QBT1GfCHc6a+j6XBE4m/l4r1MNCKR/eWkrWXjj0TneqegLl3/AMq+nTVD5V8c1OSoExunz6Iw==
X-Received: by 10.202.184.69 with SMTP id i66mr562619oif.241.1505955643649; Wed, 20 Sep 2017 18:00:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ?IPv6:2600:8802:5600:e::1da8? ([2600:8802:5600:e::1da8]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id c137sm610228oig.12.2017.09.20.18.00.42 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 20 Sep 2017 18:00:42 -0700 (PDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 11.0 \(3445.1.6\))
From: Fred Baker <fredbaker.ietf@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <E48DDA04-C058-4992-906E-8C8BC0E102AB@consulintel.es>
Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2017 18:00:40 -0700
Cc: v6ops@ietf.org
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <1BFA3605-4B16-4331-A7BA-3BDECBCA64EC@gmail.com>
References: <D5E8043B.86B21%lee@asgard.org> <E48DDA04-C058-4992-906E-8C8BC0E102AB@consulintel.es>
To: JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <jordi.palet@consulintel.es>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.1.6)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/_OenO7uyrc1n9vtFGeRLLIb3OJI>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] reclassify 464XLAT as standard instead of info
X-BeenThere: v6ops@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: v6ops discussion list <v6ops.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/v6ops>, <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/v6ops/>
List-Post: <mailto:v6ops@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops>, <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2017 01:00:46 -0000


> On Sep 20, 2017, at 8:52 AM, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <jordi.palet@consulintel.es> wrote:
> 
>> From my perspective, there are multiple interoperable specs. We have several CLAT client implementations/vendors, from different vendors, and they work fine in the same and different operators and interoperate with different NAT64 and DNS64 vendors/implementations.
> 
> What I’m not sure is, because 464XLAT is basically RFC6145 (SIIT) + RFC6146 (Stateful NAT64) and also can use RFC6147 (DNS64), which are already Standards track, if we need also to move them to STD in that case, etc.

I'll repeat myself earlier. Looking at the definitions of the terms, there is no reason it can't or shouldn't be BCP, which our charter does allow us to do, and which is a one-shot standard more appropriate to the case (IMHO). If you want it to be a standardard, a BCP is a standard. Let's advance it to BCP.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email