Re: [v6ops] RFC7849 must not recommend 64share, and must not be recommended itself to 3GPP

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

On 06/03/2017 01:30, Alexandre Petrescu wrote:
> 
> 
> Le 05/03/2017 à 03:57, Brian E Carpenter a écrit :
>> On 05/03/2017 09:12, Fred Baker wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Mar 4, 2017, at 5:01 AM, Alexandre Petrescu <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> RFC 7849 is not a product of v6ops.
>>>>
>>>> Seems so... although I remember there was some discussion here about it.
>>>
>>> It was introduced in v6ops and discussed. It went through several revisions, including being adopted by the working group and then dropped due to dissent.
>>>
>>>   - https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-binet-v6ops-cellular-host-reqs-rfc3316update
>>>   - https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-binet-v6ops-cellular-host-requirements
>>>   - https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-v6ops-mobile-device-profile
>>>
>>> I think the fairest thing to say is that there were three separate consensuses in the discussion: those that supported it (the authors, representing a number of 3GPP networks), those that didn't (a set of people who also worked in 3GPP), and those that wished we would talk about something else. The chairs (Joel and I) eventually suggested to the authors that they publish it in the Independent Stream, which they did.
>>
>> So why are we even discussing a document whose boilerplate says things like
>>
>>   "The consensus-based IETF description of IPv6 functionality for
>>    cellular hosts is described in RFC 7066.
>>    ...
>>    This document is not an Internet Standards Track specification; it is
>>    published for informational purposes.
> 
> As such, it should not have an RFC number.

The IETF does not own the RFC series. See https://www.rfc-editor.org/about/independent/
and RFCs 5741, 5742, 6548.

  Brian (member of the ISEB, https://www.rfc-editor.org/about/ISEB/ )

> 
> There are many I-Ds out there without RFC numbers - they are also for 
> informational purposes.
> 
>>    This is a contribution to the RFC Series, independently of any other
>>    RFC stream.  The RFC Editor has chosen to publish this document at
>>    its discretion and makes no statement about its value for
>>    implementation or deployment.  Documents approved for publication by
>>    the RFC Editor are not a candidate for any level of Internet
>>    Standard..."
> 
> As such, it should not have an RFC number.
> 
> Alex
> 
>>
>> ?
>>
>>     Brian
>>
>