An RFC is an RFC when it is an RFC (Was: Question Re: best practices)

Ted Mittelstaedt tedm at
Mon May 9 20:05:45 CEST 2011

On 5/9/2011 10:56 AM, Martin Millnert wrote:
> On Mon, 2011-05-09 at 10:39 -0700, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
>> On 5/9/2011 10:13 AM, Jeroen Massar wrote:
>>> On 2011-May-09 19:00, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
>>>> That is a draft, not a real RFC.
>>> Ehmmm, from the top of the document:
>>> 8<=============================================
>>> Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF)
>>> Request for Comments: 6146
>>> Category: Standards Track
>>> ISSN: 2070-1721
>>> =============================================>8
> Ted,  you seem to be educating us on three issues:
>   1) NAT is bad,
>   2) that 6146 is not a standard,
>   3) that 6146 is a draft document
> re 3: I'm thoroughly confused.  To us not involved in BEHAVE or experts
> on IETF process, what makes 6146 not be a proposed standard in the
> standards track (it does claim so)?

Being a draft does not automatically guarentee it will become a 
standard.  Use it at your own risk.

As for is NAT bad, well I think so - but I would say the same
for any other proposed standard passed off as a real standard
regardless if it had to do with NAT or not.


  Ok, there's a link named
> "draft-ietf-behave..." on top, but that seems to be the case for other
> proposed standards in the standards track by my random testing. The
> 'draft' in that link text is the only match of the word 'draft' in the
> entire RFC, according to my browser.
> On 2: do you mean that the standardization has failed to standardize the
> protocols involved/proposed?
> Best Regards,
> Martin

More information about the ipv6-ops mailing list