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@xxxxxxxx> 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@xxxxxxxx mailing lists by 2014-12-29. Exceptionally, comments may be > sent to iesg@xxxxxxxx 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/ > >