<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?rfc toc="yes"?>
<?rfc compact="yes"?>
<?rfc tocdepth="6"?>
<?rfc symrefs="yes"?>
<?rfc sortrefs="yes"?>
<?rfc autobreaks="no"?>
<?rfc subcompact="no"?>

<rfc category="std" submissionType="IETF" consensus="yes" ipr="trust200902" docName="draft-palet-v6ops-siit-std-00">
  <front>
  <title abbrev="Reclassifying SIIT (RFC7915) to STD">Reclassifying SIIT (RFC7915) to Internet Standard</title>

    <author fullname="Jordi Palet Martinez" initials="J" surname="Palet Martinez">
      <organization>The IPv6 Company</organization>

      <address>
        <postal>
          <street>Molino de la Navata, 75</street>

          <city>La Navata - Galapagar</city>

          <region>Madrid</region>

          <code>28420</code>

          <country>Spain</country>
        </postal>

        <email>jordi.palet@theipv6company.com</email>

        <uri>http://www.theipv6company.com/</uri>
      </address>
    </author>

    <date year="2025"/>

		<workgroup>v6ops</workgroup>


		<abstract>
			<t>This document reclassifies IP/ICMP Translation Algorithm (<xref target="RFC7915"/>) to Internet Standard.</t>
		</abstract>
	</front>

	<middle>
		<section title="Introduction">
			<t>This document proposes that IP/ICMP Translation Algorithm (<xref target="RFC7915"/>) is advanced 
			Internet Standard, following RFC6410 (<xref target="RFC6410"/>).</t>

			<t>(1) There are at least two independent interoperating implementations with widespread 
			deployment and successful operational experience.</t>

			<t>IP/ICMP Translation Algorithm (<xref target="RFC7915"/>) has been widely implemented by at least a dozen of vendors 
			and its being used in commercial deployments by hundreds of millions of devices.</t>

			<t>(2) There are no errata against the specification that would cause a new implementation to fail 
			to interoperate with deployed ones.</t>

			<t>IP/ICMP Translation Algorithm (<xref target="RFC7915"/>) has 2 errata, none of which would cause new interoperability problems.</t>

			<t>(3) There are no unused features in the specification that greatly increase implementation complexity.</t>

			<t>There are no unused features.</t>

			<t>(4) If the technology required to implement the specification requires patented or otherwise 
			controlled technology, then the set of implementations must demonstrate at least two independent, 
			separate and successful uses of the licensing process.</t>

			<t>There is a pending Patent that offers Reasonable and Non-Discriminatory License to All Implementers 
			with Possible Royalty/Fee, however it hasn't constituted an issue for multiple independent implementations.</t>

		</section>

	</middle>

  <back>

    <references title="Normative References">
		<?rfc include="reference.RFC.7915" ?>
		<?rfc include="reference.RFC.6410" ?>
    </references>

  </back>


</rfc>
