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

[Ted Mittelstaedt]

On 5/9/2011 11:15 AM, Cameron Byrne wrote:
> 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:
>>>>>
>>>>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6146
>>>>>
>>>>> 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.
>>
>> Ted
>>
>
>
> 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
> other.
>
> http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc6146.txt

Well, first of all 6146 isn't the problem the OP was talking about.

> http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2460.txt

rfc2460 is a draft standard that has been replaced by proposed standards
as shown here:

http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2460

So, no, 2460 is not the same as 6146

Now, as for proposed standards vs standards, I'll refer here:

>

 From http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.txt


4.1.3  Internet Standard

    A specification for which significant implementation and successful
    operational experience has been obtained may be elevated to the
    Internet Standard level

The simple fact of the matter is that IPv6 has NOT been significantly
implemented on the Internet.  Until that happens it will NOT be possible
for it to meet the requirements of standardization.

Your argument is essentially saying that since IPv6 standardization 
isn't fixed in stone, that it is OK to deploy all sorts of solutions
such as NAT over IPv6 that aren't fixed in stone either.

But this argument is disingenuous.

You may note one of the requirements to be advanced to Draft
standard:

4.1.2  Draft Standard

    A specification from which at least two independent and interoperable
    implementations from different code bases have been developed, and
    for which sufficient successful operational experience has been
    obtained, may be elevated to the "Draft Standard" level.

pray tell where are the independent implementations from different code
bases?

Can you provide URL's?

Ted


> Cameron
>
>>   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
>>>
>>
>>
>