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

[Alexandre Petrescu <[e-mail]>]

Mr. Baker,

With all due respect, here is my comment.

Le 21/09/2017 à 03:00, Fred Baker a écrit :
> 
> 
>> On Sep 20, 2017, at 8:52 AM, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ 
>> <[e-mail]> 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.

I would not suggest making something that relies on IPv4, or an 
INFORMATIONAL 64share, a BCP.

For the 'billions' argument - it is the easiness of duplicating matters
on Computers, not about their righteousness.  One can duplicate good
things, but one can also duplicate bad things, with the same easiness.

Alex