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

[Fred Baker <[e-mail]>]

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

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