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

[Lee Howard <[e-mail]>]

On 9/22/17, 2:22 PM, "v6ops on behalf of JORDI PALET MARTINEZ"
<[e-mail] on behalf of [e-mail]> wrote:

>Hi Lee,
>
>See below in-line.
>
>Regards,
>Jordi
> 
>
>-----Mensaje original-----
>De: v6ops <[e-mail]> en nombre de Lee Howard
><[e-mail]>
>Responder a: <[e-mail]>
>Fecha: viernes, 22 de septiembre de 2017, 14:56
>Para: Lee Howard <[e-mail]>
>CC: "[e-mail] WG" <[e-mail]>
>Asunto: Re: [v6ops] reclassify 464XLAT as standard instead of info
>
>    As to the original question, I have a couple of questions:
>    
>    1. What is gained by promoting rfc6877 "464XLAT: Combination of
>Stateful
>    and Stateless Translation”?  Regardless of whether the correct
>promotion
>    path is BCP or Proposed Standard, what is the goal?
>
>[Jordi] My point is: I understand that when 464XLAT was proposed, it was
>not considered at the same level as other transition mechanisms, which
>are, from the start, standards track. Now that this is the most
>successful (in terms of number of users vs. all the other transition
>mechanisms), in my opinion there is no reason to discriminate it. So,
>either we drop to informational all the transition mechanisms that have
>so much lower degree of success or even to historic or deprecated those
>that are not used. Is a matter of fairness and recognize the reality.

Well, rfc6877 doesn’t define a new protocol, it describes a way that
existing technologies could meet a need. I’m trying to read it as a
Technical Specification as defined by rfc2026, and I don’t see how it fits.

Who is discriminating against the most successful mechanism based on its
document track?

>    
>    2. rfc2026 “The Internet Standards Process”  says a BCP is the "best
>    current thinking on a statement of principle or on what is believed
>to be
>    the best way to perform some operations.”  What principle or what
>    operations is 464xlat best for?
>    
>[Jordi] Well, I was suggesting standards track, not BCP. So not sure how
>to read this question myself. Actually, I’ve drafted already (started two
>months ago, and not related at all to this discussion, but for lack of
>time availability, haven’t completed it yet, hopefully can have it early
>next week) a BCP which initially I’ve titled “464XLAT Deployment
>Guidelines in Operator Networks”. The idea come out after we had the
>discussion of deploying at the IETF network 464XLAT instead of just
>NAT64. In this document I’m describing how, according to my experience
>(and hopefully inputs from others once a first version is published),
>464XLAT is being deployed in both cellular and non-cellular networks.

Maybe I should have also asked the question, “How does rfc6877 meet the
standard of an Internet Standard according to rfc2026?”

Lee