An RFC is an RFC when it is an RFC (Was: Question Re: best practices)
cb.list6 at gmail.com
Mon May 9 20:15:35 CEST 2011
On Mon, May 9, 2011 at 11:05 AM, Ted Mittelstaedt <tedm at ipinc.net> wrote:
> 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:
>>>> Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF)
>>>> Request for Comments: 6146
>>>> Category: Standards Track
>>>> ISSN: 2070-1721
>> 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.
Soo..... These 2 drafts have the same headers, both are proposed
standards, there is no difference in their standings from an IETF
perspective, as far as i know. I am interested in hearing fact based
pointers on how i should view one as more of a standard than the
> 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,
More information about the ipv6-ops