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

[Cameron Byrne]

On Mon, May 9, 2011 at 1:00 PM, Ted Mittelstaedt <tedm at ipinc.net> wrote:
> 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 rfc2460 is a draft standard that has been replaced by proposed standards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?
>

http://www.a10networks.com/products/axseries-NAT64_DNS64.php

http://www.brocade.com/solutions-technology/enterprise/application-delivery/seamless-transition-to-ipv6/index.page

http://www.cisco.com/en/US/docs/ios/ios_xe/ipaddr/configuration/guide/iad_stateless_nat64_xe.html

http://www.juniper.net/techpubs/en_US/junos10.4/information-products/topic-collections/nce/nat64-ipv6-ipv4-depletion/configuring-nat64-ipv6-ipv4-depletion.pdf

http://ecdysis.viagenie.ca/

There are others as well...

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