draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv4survey-trans-04.txt   draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv4survey-trans-05.txt 
Network Working Group Philip J. Nesser II Network Working Group Philip J. Nesser II
Network Working Group Philip J. Nesser II draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv4survey-trans-05.txt Nesser & Nesser Consulting
draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv4survey-trans-04.txt Nesser & Nesser Consulting
Internet Draft Andreas Bergstrom (Ed.) Internet Draft Andreas Bergstrom (Ed.)
Ostfold University College Ostfold University College
November 2003 December 2003
Expires April 2004 Expires May 2004
Survey of IPv4 Addresses in Currently Deployed Survey of IPv4 Addresses in Currently Deployed
IETF Transport Area Standards IETF Transport Area Standards
Status of this Memo Status of this Memo
This document is an Internet-Draft and is in full conformance with This document is an Internet-Draft and is in full conformance with
all provisions of Section 10 of RFC2026. all provisions of Section 10 of RFC2026.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
skipping to change at line 426 skipping to change at line 426
Calling address client's IP address Calling address client's IP address
(4 octets) (4 octets)
4.0 Draft Standards 4.0 Draft Standards
Draft Standards represent the penultimate standard level in the IETF. Draft Standards represent the penultimate standard level in the IETF.
A protocol can only achieve draft standard when there are multiple, A protocol can only achieve draft standard when there are multiple,
independent, interoperable implementations. Draft Standards are usually independent, interoperable implementations. Draft Standards are usually
quite mature and widely used. quite mature and widely used.
4.1 RFC 3551 RTP Profile for Audio and Video Conferences with Minimal 4.1 RFC 3530 Network File System (NFS) version 4 Protocol
Control.
There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.
4.2 RFC 3530 Network File System (NFS) version 4 Protocol 4.2 RFC 3550 RTP: A Transport Protocol for Real-Time Applications
There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.
4.3 RFC 3551 RTP Profile for Audio and Video Conferences with Minimal
Control.
There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.
5.0 Proposed Standards 5.0 Proposed Standards
Proposed Standards are introductory level documents. There are no Proposed Standards are introductory level documents. There are no
requirements for even a single implementation. In many cases Proposed requirements for even a single implementation. In many cases Proposed
are never implemented or advanced in the IETF standards process. They are never implemented or advanced in the IETF standards process. They
therefore are often just proposed ideas that are presented to the therefore are often just proposed ideas that are presented to the
Internet community. Sometimes flaws are exposed or they are one of Internet community. Sometimes flaws are exposed or they are one of
skipping to change at line 937 skipping to change at line 941
There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.
5.80 RFC 3525 Gateway Control Protocol Version 1 5.80 RFC 3525 Gateway Control Protocol Version 1
There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.
5.81 RFC 3544 IP Header Compression over PPP 5.81 RFC 3544 IP Header Compression over PPP
There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.
5.82 RFC 3550 RTP: A Transport Protocol for Real-Time Applications
There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.
6.0 Experimental RFCs 6.0 Experimental RFCs
Experimental RFCs typically define protocols that do not have widescale Experimental RFCs typically define protocols that do not have widescale
implementation or usage on the Internet. They are often propriety in implementation or usage on the Internet. They are often propriety in
nature or used in limited arenas. They are documented to the Internet nature or used in limited arenas. They are documented to the Internet
community in order to allow potential interoperability or some other community in order to allow potential interoperability or some other
potential useful scenario. In a few cases they are presented as potential useful scenario. In a few cases they are presented as
alternatives to the mainstream solution to an acknowledged problem. alternatives to the mainstream solution to an acknowledged problem.
6.01 RFC 908 Reliable Data Protocol (RDP) 6.01 RFC 908 Reliable Data Protocol (RDP)
skipping to change at line 1167 skipping to change at line 1167
6.15 RFC 2909 The Multicast Address-Set Claim (MASC) Protocol 6.15 RFC 2909 The Multicast Address-Set Claim (MASC) Protocol
This specification is both IPv4 and IPv6 aware and needs no changes. This specification is both IPv4 and IPv6 aware and needs no changes.
7.0 Summary of Results 7.0 Summary of Results
In the initial survey of RFCs 25 positives were identified out of a In the initial survey of RFCs 25 positives were identified out of a
total of 104, broken down as follows: total of 104, broken down as follows:
Standards 3 of 5 or 60.00% Standards 3 of 5 or 60.00%
Draft Standards 0 of 2 or 0.00% Draft Standards 0 of 3 or 0.00%
Proposed Standards 17 of 82 or 20.73% Proposed Standards 17 of 81 or 20.99%
Experimental RFCs 4 of 15 or 26.67% Experimental RFCs 4 of 15 or 26.67%
Of those identified many require no action because they document Of those identified many require no action because they document
outdated and unused protocols, while others are document protocols outdated and unused protocols, while others are document protocols
that are actively being updated by the appropriate working groups. that are actively being updated by the appropriate working groups.
Additionally there are many instances of standards that SHOULD be Additionally there are many instances of standards that SHOULD be
updated but do not cause any operational impact if they are not updated but do not cause any operational impact if they are not
updated. The remaining instances are documented below. updated. The remaining instances are documented below.
7.1 Standards 7.1 Standards
 End of changes. 

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.23, available from http://www.levkowetz.com/ietf/tools/rfcdiff/