Subject: IPv6 core specifications to Internet Standard

From: [email-masked]
Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2016 20:14:53 +0100

The 6MAN working group has been working on advancing the core IPv6
specifications to Internet Standard.  The next steps to achieve this
goal is described here.

As we’re finishing the edits on the RFC2460bis, RFC1981bis and
RFC4291bis, we will initiate working group last calls with the
intended status of Internet Standard, for these within the next few
weeks. The focus of the working group last call is on the RFC6410
requirements and implementation status of the updated text. Tim
Winters is working on a report of interoperability status that will be
presented at IETF 95.

When those are advanced to the IESG, we will send the IESG the
following letter to request reclassifying RFC3596, RFC4941, RFC4443
in-place as Internet Standards.

The result will be for all six of these documents to be Internet Standards.

Attached is the draft letter to the IESG.

Please comment on this plan.

Best regards,
Ole and Bob

------------------------

Dear IESG,

The 6MAN working group requests that the IESG initiate the process to
reclassify the following 3 draft standard RFCs as Internet Standard.

Following the requirements in RFC6410, section 2.2:

(1) There are at least two independent interoperating implementations
     with widespread deployment and successful operational experience.

(2) There are no errata against the specification that would cause a
    new implementation to fail to interoperate with deployed ones.

(3) There are no unused features in the specification that greatly
    increase implementation complexity.

(4) If the technology required to implement the specification
   requires patented or otherwise controlled technology, then the
   set of implementations must demonstrate at least two independent,
   separate and successful uses of the licensing process.

RFC4443 (https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc4443/)
	o Widly implemented:
	  https://www.ipv6ready.org/db/index.php/public/?o=4
	o 4 errata, none of which would cause new interoperability
	  problems.  Updated by: RFC4884, but the consensus is that
	  it’s not an update, more like an extension.
	o There are no unused features.
	o  None.

RFC3595 (https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc3596/)
	o Widly implemented:
	  https://www.ipv6ready.org/db/index.php/public/?o=4
	o No errata. No updated by.
	o There are no unused features.
	o None.

RFC4941 (https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc4941/)
	o Widly implemented:
          https://www.ipv6ready.org/db/index.php/public/?o=4
	o 3 verified errata, 4 held for document update. None of the
          errata will cause new implementations to fail to
          interoperate with deployed ones.  No updated by.
	o There are no unused features.
	o None.

Best regards,
Ole & Bob - on behalf of the 6man Working group

---

From: JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2016 20:22:53 +0100

In case is useful for Tim and he didn’t realized it, we started long time ago this process with:

http://www.ipv6-to-standard.org/

The list of protocols supported at that time by each app is at:

http://www.ipv6-to-standard.org/submit.php

It was looking not just to stacks but apps using them.

Regards,
Jordi

-----Mensaje original-----
De: ipv6 <[email-masked]> en nombre de <[email-masked]>
Responder a: <[email-masked]>
Fecha: lunes, 21 de marzo de 2016, 20:14
Para: 6man WG <[email-masked]>
CC: <[email-masked]>
Asunto: IPv6 core specifications to Internet Standard

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

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2016 10:51:28 +1300

I think it's a fine plan. Just three points to watch:

Any other 6man documents in progress at the time need to be carefully
checked to see if they make reference to 2460, 1981 or 4291, and if so
reworded to refer to the new RFCs.

Are there any other documents to be obsoleted or made Historic at the same time?

Should we update IPv6 Node Requirements at the same time or very soon after?

Regards
   Brian

---

From: Brian Haberman <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2016 07:01:28 -0400

Hi Brian,

> reworded to refer to the new RFCs.

Agreed.

> Are there any other documents to be obsoleted or made Historic at the same time?

Not that I am aware of, but a double-check by other eyes would be good.

> Should we update IPv6 Node Requirements at the same time or very soon after?

I think that is a fine idea. Do we have people willing to do the work
and/or hold the pen?

Regards,
Brian