Subject: IPv6 as a Standard?

From: Francis Dupont <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 30 Mar 2015 23:30:21 +0200

There are no minutes available yet (cf https://tools.ietf.org/wg/6man/minutes)
so I put here in the list what I said at the beginning of the meeting
last week.

IPv6 is 20 year old (cf my next message) so it is time to launch the
process to make it a (full) Standard!

Thanks

[email-masked]

PS: according to the last RFC Index:

2460 Internet Protocol, Version 6 (IPv6) Specification. S. Deering, R.
     Hinden. December 1998. (Format: TXT=85490 bytes) (Obsoletes RFC1883)
     (Updated by RFC5095, RFC5722, RFC5871, RFC6437, RFC6564, RFC6935,
     RFC6946, RFC7045, RFC7112) (Status: DRAFT STANDARD)

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 31 Mar 2015 11:20:46 +1300

> process to make it a (full) Standard!

Age is not the question - does it meet the criteria in RFC 6410?
I think the answer is yes, but the questions about errata and unused
features have to be answered.

And there is a practical problem caused by "Updated by RFC5095, RFC5722,
RFC5871, RFC6437, RFC6564, RFC6935, RFC6946, RFC7045, RFC7112". There's
no way 2460 can be promoted as-is.

   Brian

> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
> [email-masked]
> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>

---

From: Francis Dupont <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 31 Mar 2015 01:54:22 +0200

>  no way 2460 can be promoted as-is.

=> I believe the answer is in your second sentence, i.e., errata and
unused features are in the updating RFCs. So:
 (1) 2 implementations: no issue
 (2) errata: to be done (*)
 (3) unused feature: to be done (*)
 (4) IPR: none
So we have to produce a "consolidated" version of RFC 2460 merging most
of the updating RFCs (what I marked with (*)). The token is in the hands
of the WG chairs...

Thanks