Subject: Standard status of RFC 3879

From: Christian Huitema <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2009 21:35:28 -0800

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

---

From: Bob Hinden <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 21 Jan 2009 10:05:36 -0800

> RFC 3879 was published as proposed standard about 5 years ago. Do we  
> intend to leave it at that stage, or to update its status along the  
> standard track?
>

What did you have in mind?  Is there a reason to advance it?

Bob

---

From: Christian Huitema <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 21 Jan 2009 11:29:40 -0800

> What did you have in mind?  Is there a reason to advance it?

I am getting enquiries along the lines of "OK, this was a proposed standard 5 years ago, it has not progressed, does it mean it is now obsolete?"

Of course, I can reply that status doesn't matter, that for all practical purposes Proposed Standards are just as standards as Draft Standards or Internet Standards.

-- Christian Huitema

---

From: Pekka Savola <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 21 Jan 2009 21:35:36 +0200 (EET)

> I am getting enquiries along the lines of "OK, this was a proposed 
> standard 5 years ago, it has not progressed, does it mean it is now 
> obsolete?"

FWIW, I wouldn't mind advancing it if there is significant new 
evidence or experience to document at the same time.  If not (perhaps 
you were referring to this), just updating on the standards track and 
keeping the document unchanged, doesn't seem to have that much point 
given we need to put energy to other work as well.

Site-locals and ULAs is one area where I suspect our understanding of 
the situation has improved, and will continue to improve.  Timing the 
update properly to gather that understanding is probably a good idea.

-- 
Pekka Savola                 "You each name yourselves king, yet the
Netcore Oy                    kingdom bleeds."
Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
[email-masked]
Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------

---

From: Ed Jankiewicz <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 21 Jan 2009 15:26:50 -0500

reference, but also restates the action taken by RFC 3879.  Assuming RFC 
4291 progresses along the standards track making the deprecation of 
Site-local a "standard" is there any need to also promote 3879?   Also, 
since 4291 obsoletes 3351, the definition of site-local address is 
effectively erased, as if it never existed, although the text does not 
say MUST NOT, and allows for the use of site-local by preexisting 
implementations.

In the latest version of the US DoD IPv6 profiles, RFC 3879 is mentioned 
only as a footnote because RFC 4291 appears to be definitive enough.

Bob Hinden wrote:
> Christian,

-- 
Ed Jankiewicz - SRI International
Fort Monmouth Branch Office - IPv6 Research 
Supporting DISA Standards Engineering Branch
732-389-1003 or  [email-masked]

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2009 09:31:00 +1300

On 2009-01-22 08:35, Pekka Savola wrote:
> On Wed, 21 Jan 2009, Christian Huitema wrote:
> FWIW, I wouldn't mind advancing it if there is significant new evidence
> or experience to document at the same time.  If not (perhaps you were
> referring to this), just updating on the standards track and keeping the
> document unchanged, doesn't seem to have that much point given we need
> to put energy to other work as well.

Well, I think Christian's point is valid. There are still text books that
list site-local as valid, and in my XP box I find:

       DNS Servers . . . . . . . . . . . : 130.216.xx.xxx
                                           130.216.xx.xxx
                                           fec0:0:0:ffff::1%2
                                           fec0:0:0:ffff::2%2
                                           fec0:0:0:ffff::3%2

I think that simply reclassifying 3879 as DS would be a Good Thing
and requires minimal effort.

> update properly to gather that understanding is probably a good idea.

I don't believe there is enough deployment experience with ULAs yet.
I wouldn't personally want to couple the 3879 issue with re-opening
the ULA discussion.

     Brian

---

From: Pekka Savola <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2009 13:10:10 +0200 (EET)

> and requires minimal effort.

FWIW, I see this more as evidence that site-local deprecation hasn't 
been as successful as we could hope.  Putting 3879 to AS doesn't fix 
above.