I do not support this action, considering the statement motivating the action
and the text in RFC 6346.
In my opinion, the document has been successful in providing a framework for
development of specific protocols using the techniques described in the
document. It doesn't describe a specific protocol, as such, and there is no
need or advantage to moving it to Proposed Standard.
If the document is moved to Proposed Standard, I recommend that the IESG
request some additional information before approving the action.
Specifically, which mechanisms using A+P have been designed, implemented and
deployed? Which of the techniques in RFC 6346 have been incorporated into
these deployed mechanisms? Have all of the techniques that would now have
"Proposed Standard" status been incorporated into specific deployed mechanisms?
- Ralph
On Dec 1, 2014, at 2:38 PM 12/1/14, The IESG
<iesg-secretary(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org> wrote:
The IESG has received a request from an individual participant to make
the following status changes:
- RFC6346 from Experimental to Proposed Standard
(The Address plus Port (A+P) Approach to the IPv4 Address Shortage)
The supporting document for this request can be found here:
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/status-change-address-plus-port-to-proposed/
The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the
ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org mailing lists by 2014-12-29. Exceptionally, comments
may be
sent to iesg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org instead. In either case, please retain the
beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting.
The affected document can be obtained via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc6346/
IESG discussion of this request can be tracked via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/status-change-address-plus-port-to-proposed/ballot/