idnits 2.17.1 draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv4survey-subip-02.txt: Checking boilerplate required by RFC 5378 and the IETF Trust (see https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info): ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ** Looks like you're using RFC 2026 boilerplate. This must be updated to follow RFC 3978/3979, as updated by RFC 4748. Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/1id-guidelines.txt: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == No 'Intended status' indicated for this document; assuming Proposed Standard == The page length should not exceed 58 lines per page, but there was 1 longer page, the longest (page 1) being 316 lines Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist : ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ** The document seems to lack an IANA Considerations section. (See Section 2.2 of https://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist for how to handle the case when there are no actions for IANA.) ** There is 1 instance of too long lines in the document, the longest one being 3 characters in excess of 72. Miscellaneous warnings: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == The copyright year in the RFC 3978 Section 5.4 Copyright Line does not match the current year == The "Author's Address" (or "Authors' Addresses") section title is misspelled. -- The document seems to lack a disclaimer for pre-RFC5378 work, but may have content which was first submitted before 10 November 2008. If you have contacted all the original authors and they are all willing to grant the BCP78 rights to the IETF Trust, then this is fine, and you can ignore this comment. If not, you may need to add the pre-RFC5378 disclaimer. (See the Legal Provisions document at https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info for more information.) -- The document date (January 2004) is 7400 days in the past. Is this intentional? Checking references for intended status: Proposed Standard ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- (See RFCs 3967 and 4897 for information about using normative references to lower-maturity documents in RFCs) == Outdated reference: A later version (-06) exists of draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv4survey-intro-02 ** Downref: Normative reference to an Informational draft: draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv4survey-intro (ref. '1') Summary: 4 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 5 warnings (==), 2 comments (--). Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about the items above. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1 Network Working Group Philip J. Nesser II 2 draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv4survey-subip-02.txt Nesser & Nesser Consulting 3 Internet Draft Andreas Bergstrom 4 Ostfold University College 5 August 2003 6 Expires January 2004 8 Survey of IPv4 Addresses in Currently Deployed 9 IETF Sub-IP Area Standards 11 This document is an Internet-Draft and is in full conformance with 12 all provisions of Section 10 of RFC2026. 14 Status of this Memo 16 Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering 17 Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that other 18 groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-Drafts. 20 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six 21 months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at 22 any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference 23 material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." 25 The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at 26 http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt 28 The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at 29 http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html. 31 Abstract 33 This document seeks to document all usage of IPv4 addresses in currently 34 deployed IETF Sub-IP Area documented standards. In order to 35 successfully transition from an all IPv4 Internet to an all IPv6 36 Internet, many interim steps will be taken. One of these steps is the 37 evolution of current protocols that have IPv4 dependencies. It is 38 hoped that these protocols (and their implementations) will be 39 redesigned to be network address independent, but failing that will at 40 least dually support IPv4 and IPv6. To this end, all Standards (Full, 41 Draft, and Proposed) as well as Experimental RFCs will be surveyed and 42 any dependencies will be documented. 44 Table of Contents 46 1. Introduction 47 2. Document Organisation 48 3. Full Standards 49 4. Draft Standards 50 5. Proposed Standards 51 6. Experimental RFCs 52 7. Summary of Results 53 7.1 Standards 54 7.2 Draft Standards 55 7.3 Proposed Standards 56 7.4 Experimental RFCs 57 8. Security Consideration 58 9. Acknowledgements 59 10. References 60 11. Authors Addresses 61 12. Intellectual Property Statement 62 13. Full Copyright Statement 64 1.0 Introduction 66 This document is part of a document set aiming to document all usage of 67 IPv4 addresses in IETF stanadards. In an effort to have the information 68 in a manageable form, it has been broken into 7 documents conforming 69 to the current IETF areas (Application, Internet, Manangement & 70 Operations, Routing, Security, Sub-IP and Transport). 72 For a full introduction, please see the intro[1] draft. 74 2.0 Document Organization 76 The rest of the document sections are described below. 78 Sections 3, 4, 5, and 6 each describe the raw analysis of Full, Draft, 79 and Proposed Standards, and Experimental RFCs. Each RFC is discussed 80 in its turn starting with RFC 1 and ending with RFC 3247. The comments 81 for each RFC is "raw" in nature. That is, each RFC is discussed in a 82 vacuum and problems or issues discussed do not "look ahead" to see if 83 the problems have already been fixed. 85 Section 7 is an analysis of the data presented in Sections 3, 4, 5, and 86 6. It is here that all of the results are considered as a whole and the 87 problems that have been resolved in later RFCs are correlated. 89 3.0 Full Standards 91 Full Internet Standards (most commonly simply referred to as 92 "Standards") are fully mature protocol specification that are widely 93 implemented and used throughout the Internet. 95 There are no full standars within the scope of this document. 97 4.0 Draft Standards 99 Draft Standards represent the penultimate standard level in the IETF. 100 A protocol can only achieve draft standard when there are multiple, 101 independent, interoperable implementations. Draft Standards are usually 102 quite mature and widely used. 104 There are no draft standards within the scope of this document. 106 5.0 Proposed Standards 108 Proposed Standards are introductory level documents. There are no 109 requirements for even a single implementation. In many cases Proposed 110 are never implemented or advanced in the IETF standards process. They 111 therefore are often just proposed ideas that are presented to the 112 Internet community. Sometimes flaws are exposed or they are one of 113 many competing solutions to problems. In these later cases, no 114 discussion is presented as it would not serve the purpose of this 115 discussion. 117 5.01 RFC 3031 Multiprotocol Label Switching Architecture (MPLS) 119 There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol. 121 5.01 RFC 3032 MPLS Label Stack Encoding 123 This protocol is both IPv4 and IPv6 aware and needs no changes. 125 5.03 RFC 3034 Use of Label Switching on Frame Relay Networks 126 Specification 128 There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol. 130 5.04 RFC 3035 MPLS using LDP and ATM VC Switching 132 There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol. 134 5.05 RFC 3036 LDP Specification 136 This protocol is both IPv4 and IPv6 aware and needs no changes. 138 5.06 RFC 3038 VCID Notification over ATM link for LDP 140 There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol. 142 6.0 Experimental RFCs 144 Experimental RFCs typically define protocols that do not have widescale 145 implementation or usage on the Internet. They are often propriety in 146 nature or used in limited arenas. They are documented to the Internet 147 community in order to allow potential interoperability or some other 148 potential useful scenario. In a few cases they are presented as 149 alternatives to the mainstream solution to an acknowledged problem. 151 6.1 RFC 3063 MPLS Loop Prevention Mechanism 153 There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol. 155 7.0 Summary of Results 157 In the initial survey of RFCs 0 positives were identified out of a 158 total of 7, broken down as follows: 160 Standards 0 of 0 or 0.00% 161 Draft Standards 0 of 0 or 0.00% 162 Proposed Standards 0 of 6 or 0.00% 163 Experimental RFCs 0 of 1 or 0.00% 165 Of those identified many require no action because they document 166 outdated and unused protocols, while others are document protocols 167 that are actively being updated by the appropriate working groups. 168 Additionally there are many instances of standards that should be 169 updated but do not cause any operational impact if they are not 170 updated. The remaining instances are documented below. 172 7.1 Standards 174 There are no standards within the scope of this document. 176 7.2 Draft Standards 178 There are no draft standards within the scope of this document. 180 7.3 Proposed Standards 182 There are no proposed standards with recommendations in this document. 184 7.4 Experimental RFCs 186 There are no experimental standards with recommendations in this 187 document. 189 8.0 Security Consideration 191 This memo examines the IPv6-readiness of specifications; this does not 192 have security considerations in itself. 194 9.0 Acknowledgements 196 The authors would like to acknowledge the support of the Internet 197 Society in the research and production of this document. 198 Additionally the author, Philip J. Nesser II, would like to thanks 199 his partner in all ways, Wendy M. Nesser. 201 The editor, Andreas Bergstrom, would like to thank Pekka Savola 202 for guidance and collection of comments for the editing of this 203 document. 205 10.0 References 207 10.1 Normative 209 [1] Philip J. Nesser II, Andreas Bergstrom. "Introduction to the Survey of 210 IPv4 Addresses in Currently Deployed IETF Standards", 211 draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv4survey-intro-02.txt IETF work in progress, 212 August 2003 214 11.0 Authors Addresses 216 Please contact the author with any questions, comments or suggestions 217 at: 219 Philip J. Nesser II 220 Principal 221 Nesser & Nesser Consulting 222 13501 100th Ave NE, #5202 223 Kirkland, WA 98034 225 Email: phil@nesser.com 226 Phone: +1 425 481 4303 227 Fax: +1 425 48 229 Andreas Bergstrom 230 Ostfold University College 231 Email: andreas.bergstrom@hiof.no 232 Address: Rute 503 Buer 233 N-1766 Halden 234 Norway 236 12.0 Intellectual Property Statement 238 The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any 239 intellectual property or other rights that might be claimed to 240 pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in 241 this document or the extent to which any license under such rights 242 might or might not be available; neither does it represent that it 243 has made any effort to identify any such rights. Information on the 244 IETF's procedures with respect to rights in standards-track and 245 standards-related documentation can be found in BCP-11. Copies of 246 claims of rights made available for publication and any assurances of 247 licenses to be made available, or the result of an attempt made to 248 obtain a general license or permission for the use of such 249 proprietary rights by implementors or users of this specification can 250 be obtained from the IETF Secretariat. 251 The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any 252 copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary 253 rights which may cover technology that may be required to practice 254 this standard. Please address the information to the IETF Executive 255 Director. 257 13.0 Full Copyright Statement 259 Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2000). All Rights Reserved. 261 This document and translations of it may be copied and furnished to 262 others, and derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain it 263 or assist in its implementation may be prepared, copied, published 264 and distributed, in whole or in part, without restriction of any 265 kind, provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph are 266 included on all such copies and derivative works. However, this docu- 267 ment itself may not be modified in any way, such as by removing the 268 copyright notice or references to the Internet Society or other 269 Internet organizations, except as needed for the purpose of develop- 270 ing Internet standards in which case the procedures for copyrights 271 defined in the Internet Standards process must be followed, or as 272 required to translate it into languages other than English. The lim- 273 ited permissions granted above are perpetual and will not be revoked 274 by the Internet Society or its successors or assigns. This document 275 and the information contained herein is provided on an "AS IS" basis 276 and THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DIS- 277 CLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED 278 TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT 279 INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR 280 FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.