IETF Logo Mail Archive

[v6ops] Re: Advancing RFC7757, RFC7755, and RFC7756 to standard

Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> Wed, 03 December 2025 00:58 UTC

Return-Path: <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
X-Original-To: v6ops@mail2.ietf.org
Delivered-To: v6ops@mail2.ietf.org
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail2.ietf.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8AC889445D2F for <v6ops@mail2.ietf.org>; Tue, 2 Dec 2025 16:58:12 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at ietf.org
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.4
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.4 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: mail2.ietf.org (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=sandelman.ca
Received: from mail2.ietf.org ([166.84.6.31]) by localhost (mail2.ietf.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id mZO45s8edYk4 for <v6ops@mail2.ietf.org>; Tue, 2 Dec 2025 16:58:11 -0800 (PST)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca (tuna.sandelman.ca [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:3:216:3eff:fe7c:d1f3]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature ECDSA (P-256) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by mail2.ietf.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 174909445C1D for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Tue, 2 Dec 2025 16:58:08 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 884C43803C for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Tue, 02 Dec 2025 19:58:07 -0500 (EST)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) (amavis, port 10024) with LMTP id iPLm_S5b-cZ6 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Tue, 2 Dec 2025 19:58:05 -0500 (EST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=sandelman.ca; s=mail; t=1764723485; bh=lxdDBCnGPguFb+Zyqg5ruWyMPjp4zRy+D+XZbVknYsA=; h=From:To:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Date:From; b=X6r6/mi3XV2CrECWE4DcBPhzER/etYQ/KZccH8uwY+NrKPEGP5nV/uxQ+eUi9/NB6 tzpDaDnY/gv899nKWdKPulcw98wLbvTEseSVawdxZ3j2C0wiEEy7pWJBFrW6zGLN+G /KYS0HuIKQ6QMvqBx1QXsOzMc3Tp338/SoOTT3R+ZIcvx6mTOb+pP/zPiGchqTxizO f0gQQmOwLrHOgpJkDrc6xwsXqvEn6ll3CAWAjTz21aAoJ6qIJ7ZKJzvYtlwaL7/A2I j3emp3L3ZL3Ovm076H49oYJXFkWuTHyByjLJg7e5Prd58Z8qIrGor07WxXXL6QxZQp 1D1Yr93CNBx1Q==
Received: from sandelman.ca (obiwan.sandelman.ca [209.87.249.21]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 93E5138039 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Tue, 02 Dec 2025 19:58:05 -0500 (EST)
Received: from obiwan.sandelman.ca (obiwan.sandelman.ca [127.0.0.1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8C43A180 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Tue, 02 Dec 2025 19:58:05 -0500 (EST)
From: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
To: IPv6 Operations <v6ops@ietf.org>
In-Reply-To: <f2c398a6-e46a-4f36-a87f-0d2557141a5b@gmail.com>
References: <CACMsEX_sH7=Vra3s4LAocZg-z7zkHPL__Y-MaRvnf_pfJGYk0A@mail.gmail.com> <CAMMESszW+7rV5Zo_Gf7wJ4O0Whs9i05s5292M+ODTHpUxo0P9w@mail.gmail.com> <CACMsEX_80PVCAFJNuED+sAqogZPa6wW5zzUAbfM5udY+sqPSFw@mail.gmail.com> <D7C90B78-2823-44A5-B8DF-45EE85ED1874@consulintel.es> <PR0P264MB2885E2A0852B6E940A65199788CAA@PR0P264MB2885.FRAP264.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM> <147D7C31-5209-4504-A17A-ECB4C6365CF6@consulintel.es> <PR0P264MB2885DB4D51DC848D959D1C2288CAA@PR0P264MB2885.FRAP264.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM> <E9C732D8-E980-4938-BDE2-03E1330C1ACC@consulintel.es> <CACMsEX8w__bucvR=dg-CgmiiodvJhGc0jaULU+RnTCHAYWXpQg@mail.gmail.com> <f2c398a6-e46a-4f36-a87f-0d2557141a5b@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: MH-E 8.6+git; nmh 1.8+dev; Emacs 30.1
X-Face: $\n1pF)h^`}$H>Hk{L"x@)JS7<%Az}5RyS@k9X%29-lHB$Ti.V>2bi.~ehC0;<'$9xN5Ub# z!G,p`nR&p7Fz@^UXIn156S8.~^@MJ*mMsD7=QFeq%AL4m<nPbLgmtKK-5dC@#:k
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg="pgp-sha512"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Date: Tue, 02 Dec 2025 19:58:05 -0500
Message-ID: <19714.1764723485@obiwan.sandelman.ca>
Message-ID-Hash: OBYXH65YPZRPTASHN7FLWR7ZWBMKPEON
X-Message-ID-Hash: OBYXH65YPZRPTASHN7FLWR7ZWBMKPEON
X-MailFrom: mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca
X-Mailman-Rule-Misses: dmarc-mitigation; no-senders; approved; emergency; loop; banned-address; member-moderation; header-match-v6ops.ietf.org-0; nonmember-moderation; administrivia; implicit-dest; max-recipients; max-size; news-moderation; no-subject; digests; suspicious-header
X-Mailman-Version: 3.3.9rc6
Precedence: list
Subject: [v6ops] Re: Advancing RFC7757, RFC7755, and RFC7756 to standard
List-Id: v6ops discussion list <v6ops.ietf.org>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/ypBZEpDgB4Ybc_AqQMgfeVp0C_Q>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/v6ops>
List-Help: <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Owner: <mailto:v6ops-owner@ietf.org>
List-Post: <mailto:v6ops@ietf.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:v6ops-join@ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:v6ops-leave@ietf.org>

Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> wrote:
    > That seems OK to me but I think the AD or the IESG might reasonably ask
    > for a single I-D doing all three things. Or they might decide that
    > nothing needs to be published and simply request the RFC Editor to
    > reclassify the documents. This is quite an unusual case (no errata
    > against any of the documents - the original authors deserve a medal).

I concur.

Just turn this into a WG Consensus Call to ask the IESG to reclassify.
The contents of the I-D usefully collect Implementation Status as evidence
for such a decision, but we don't need the RFC.

--
Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@sandelman.ca>   . o O ( IPv6 IøT consulting )
           Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide

v2.46.0 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status