Re: Choice of network space when numbering interfaces with IPv6 (IPv6 STANDARDS)
On Sat, Oct 16, 2010 at 6:26 PM, Kevin Oberman <oberman@es.net> wrote:
Date: Sun, 17 Oct 2010 00:40:41 +1030 From: Mark Smith <nanog@85d5b20a518b8f6864949bd940457dc124746ddc.nosense.org>
On Sat, 16 Oct 2010 12:31:22 +0100 Randy Bush <randy@psg.com> wrote:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-6man-prefixlen-p2p-00.txt
Drafts are drafts, and nothing more, aren't they?
Drafts are drafts. Even most RFCs are RFCs and nothing more. Only a handful have ever been designated as "Standards". I hope this becomes one of those in the hope it will be taken seriously. (It already is by anyone with a large network running IPv6.)
And none of the listed IETF "full standards" are IPv6 related. That seems a little bit odd to me given that everyone is supposed to have implemented them by now. Bill Bogstad
On Sat, 16 Oct 2010 19:52:31 -0400 Bill Bogstad <bogstad@pobox.com> wrote:
On Sat, Oct 16, 2010 at 6:26 PM, Kevin Oberman <oberman@es.net> wrote:
Date: Sun, 17 Oct 2010 00:40:41 +1030 From: Mark Smith <nanog@85d5b20a518b8f6864949bd940457dc124746ddc.nosense.org>
On Sat, 16 Oct 2010 12:31:22 +0100 Randy Bush <randy@psg.com> wrote:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-6man-prefixlen-p2p-00.txt
Drafts are drafts, and nothing more, aren't they?
Drafts are drafts. Even most RFCs are RFCs and nothing more. Only a handful have ever been designated as "Standards". I hope this becomes one of those in the hope it will be taken seriously. (It already is by anyone with a large network running IPv6.)
And none of the listed IETF "full standards" are IPv6 related. That seems a little bit odd to me given that everyone is supposed to have implemented them by now.
The IETF standards process is different to other standards organisations - publication of an RFC doesn't make it a standard. It is much more pragmatic, as operational history is also used as an input into the decision.
Bill Bogstad
On Sat, Oct 16, 2010 at 7:57 PM, Mark Smith <nanog@85d5b20a518b8f6864949bd940457dc124746ddc.nosense.org> wrote:
On Sat, 16 Oct 2010 19:52:31 -0400 Bill Bogstad <bogstad@pobox.com> wrote:
On Sat, Oct 16, 2010 at 6:26 PM, Kevin Oberman <oberman@es.net> wrote:
Date: Sun, 17 Oct 2010 00:40:41 +1030 From: Mark Smith <nanog@85d5b20a518b8f6864949bd940457dc124746ddc.nosense.org>
On Sat, 16 Oct 2010 12:31:22 +0100 Randy Bush <randy@psg.com> wrote:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-6man-prefixlen-p2p-00.txt
Drafts are drafts, and nothing more, aren't they?
Drafts are drafts. Even most RFCs are RFCs and nothing more. Only a handful have ever been designated as "Standards". I hope this becomes one of those in the hope it will be taken seriously. (It already is by anyone with a large network running IPv6.)
And none of the listed IETF "full standards" are IPv6 related. That seems a little bit odd to me given that everyone is supposed to have implemented them by now.
The IETF standards process is different to other standards organisations - publication of an RFC doesn't make it a standard. It is much more pragmatic, as operational history is also used as an input into the decision.
I read my first RFC sometime in 1984. I still find it odd that after something like a decade of development/operational history NONE of the IPv6 related RFCs have made it all the way to full standard status. This might be a minor point but I think that not making at least some of the base IPv6 RFCs full standards probably slowed down deployment. OTOH, now that people are convinced that they won't be able to get more IPv4 addresses in the near future; a possible perception that IPv6 was "experimental" may no longer matter... Bill Bogstad
On Oct 16, 2010, at 4:52 PM, Bill Bogstad wrote:
On Sat, Oct 16, 2010 at 6:26 PM, Kevin Oberman <oberman@es.net> wrote:
Date: Sun, 17 Oct 2010 00:40:41 +1030 From: Mark Smith <nanog@85d5b20a518b8f6864949bd940457dc124746ddc.nosense.org>
On Sat, 16 Oct 2010 12:31:22 +0100 Randy Bush <randy@psg.com> wrote:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-6man-prefixlen-p2p-00.txt
Drafts are drafts, and nothing more, aren't they?
Drafts are drafts. Even most RFCs are RFCs and nothing more. Only a handful have ever been designated as "Standards". I hope this becomes one of those in the hope it will be taken seriously. (It already is by anyone with a large network running IPv6.)
And none of the listed IETF "full standards" are IPv6 related. That seems a little bit odd to me given that everyone is supposed to have implemented them by now.
Bill Bogstad
IPv4 was much further along in deployment than IPv6 is now when the first IPv4 STDs were published as STDs. Usually RFCs bake for quite a while in the real world before becoming STDs. Owen
participants (3)
-
Bill Bogstad -
Mark Smith -
Owen DeLong