Also, for IPv8, the status change document should reclassify RFC 1622
(which defined the IPv8 packet formats) in addition to RFC 1621 (which
defined the IPv8 architecture). The registry should probably be updated
to reference both of those RFCs (it currently includes only RFC 1621).
Mike Heard
On Fri, 18 Mar 2016 15:55:20 +1300, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
The registry also assigns 7 to TP/IX, which became CATNIP.
So 7 also needs to be changed to Reserved and RFC1707 and RFC1475
both need to become Historic.
http://www.iana.org/assignments/version-numbers/version-numbers.xhtml#version-numbers-1
Brian
On 18/03/2016 09:13, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
If we are doing this, then I think that CATNIP (RFC1707) needs to be made
Historic at the same time, even though it didn't need an IP version
number.
I also recall rumours that some people were actually using ST2 at one
point.
Are we sure that it's totally gone away?
Regards
Brian Carpenter
On 18/03/2016 08:15, The IESG wrote:
The IESG has received a request from the Internet Engineering Steering
Group IETF (iesg) to consider the following document:
- 'Moving IP versions 5, 8, and 9 to Historic'
<status-change-ip-versions-5-8-9-to-historic-01.txt> as Historic
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.org mailing lists by 2016-04-14. Exceptionally, comments
may be
sent to iesg at ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the
beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting.
The file can be obtained via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/status-change-ip-versions-5-8-9-to-historic/
IESG discussion can be tracked via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/status-change-ip-versions-5-8-9-to-historic/ballot/
No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D.