Re: Standard status of RFC 3879

[Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com>]

Well, yes, the "minimal effort" consists of writing an interop
report for something that sort of outlaws interoperation :-)

[Brian's standard gripe about RFC2026 being broken fits here.]

I still think it would be good to do, but not if it requires
non-trivial effort.

   Brian

On 2009-02-12 10:52, Thomas Narten wrote:
>> I think that simply reclassifying 3879 as DS would be a Good Thing
>> and requires minimal effort. 
> 
> Um, what would the interoperability test (required for advancing a
> spec) actually contain?
> 
> Right. I thought so.  :-)
> 
> 3879 is weird in that implementations don't have to actually do
> anything... Partly, it was designed that way, as I recall, so that
> existing implementations wouldn't become non-compliant. Also, you
> don't "support" site locals, you just support addresses. There isn't
> special code to handle them... (That was in fact, one of the problems
> with them... you needed special code to handle them "right", which we
> didn't fully specified, and no one in their right mind would
> implemented anyway...)
> 
> The meat of 3879 (in terms of what is actionable) is:
> 
>    4.  Deprecation
> 
>    This document formally deprecates the IPv6 site-local unicast prefix
>    defined in [RFC3513], i.e., 1111111011 binary or FEC0::/10.  The
>    special behavior of this prefix MUST no longer be supported in new
>    implementations.  The prefix MUST NOT be reassigned for other use
>    except by a future IETF standards action.  Future versions of the
>    addressing architecture [RFC3513] will include this information.
> 
>    However, router implementations SHOULD be configured to prevent
>    routing of this prefix by default.
> 
>    The references to site local addresses should be removed as soon as
>    practical from the revision of the Default Address Selection for
>    Internet Protocol version 6 [RFC3484], the revision of the Basic
>    Socket Interface Extensions for IPv6 [RFC3493], and from the revision
>    of the Internet Protocol Version 6 (IPv6) Addressing Architecture
>    [RFC3513].  Incidental references to site local addresses should be
>    removed from other IETF documents if and when they are updated.
>    These documents include [RFC2772, RFC2894, RFC3082, RFC3111, RFC3142,
>    RFC3177, and RFC3316].
> 
>    Existing implementations and deployments MAY continue to use this
>    prefix.
> 
> There is work we could do, but it isn't actually with 3879...
> 
> Thomas
>