Skip to main content

Shepherd writeup

As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document
Shepherd Write-Up.

Changes are expected over time. This version is dated 24 February 2012.

(1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard,
Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)?  Why
is this the proper type of RFC?  Is this type of RFC indicated in the
title page header?

The type of the RFC is Best Current Practice.

The document does not have technical protocol description. Instead it defines
1) the required information for IPv4/IPv6 Special-Purpose Address Registry
IPv4/IPv6 Special-Purpose Address Registry that need to be provided to the IANA
as well as 2) an update of the IPv4/IPv6 Special-Purpose Address Registry.

RFC2026 section 5 mentions:
Finally, the BCP series may be used to document the operation of the IETF
itself.  For example, this document defines the IETF Standards Process and is
published as a BCP. """

The current draft document defines the necessary parameters the IANA needs to
allocate a IPv4 IPv6 Special-Purpose Addresses block. The document  allocates
the  IETF Protocol Assignments blocks (Table 7). In fact the block has already
been allocated by RFC6890, but as this document obsoletes RFC 6890, the
reference for this block assignement has been updated as well.  Other updates
are mostly to correct "nits" from the previous document as well as to collect
all documents that required a block allocation. In that sense the document is
essentially documenting IETF operations and so BCP si the appropriated type.

In addition, the document updates RFC6890 which is a BCP document.

The type of document is provided in the Header page.

(2) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document Announcement
Write-Up. Please provide such a Document Announcement Write-Up. Recent
examples can be found in the "Action" announcements for approved
documents. The approval announcement contains the following sections:

 Technical Summary

  Relevant content can frequently be found in the abstract
  and/or introduction of the document. If not, this may be
  an indication that there are deficiencies in the abstract
  or introduction.

This memo updates the IANA IPv6 Special-Purpose Address Registries to address
issues raised by the definition of a global prefix.  This memo contains all the
assignments made by RFC 6890 to the IANA Special-Purpose Address Registries.

 Working Group Summary

  Was the document considered in any WG, and if so, why was
  it not adopted as a work item there? Was there controversy
  about particular points that caused the WG to not adopt the

The document is not considered in any working group document. The document
addresses small issues raised by RFC6890, and as such an adoption process was
not believed to be necessary. Again the scope of the document is mostly focused
on updating the allocation of Special Purpose Block Addresses blocks as well as
updating the IPv4-IPv6 Special Purpose Addresses Registries with parameters
defined by other RFCs.  This limits the possible controversies.

The update was presented in Seoul (IETF97), the drafts have been sent to the
int-area mailing list and no issue has been raised.

 Document Quality

  Are there existing implementations of the protocol? Have a
  significant number of vendors indicated their plan to
  implement the specification? Are there any reviewers that
  merit special mention as having done a thorough review,
  e.g., one that resulted in important changes or a
  conclusion that the document had no substantive issues? If
  there was a MIB Doctor, Media Type or other expert review,
  what was its course (briefly)? In the case of a Media Type
  review, on what date was the request posted?

This is not a protocol description document. The main involved entity are IETF
and IANA. IANA is co-authoring the draft and the IETF community is represented
by the co-authors as well as by the communication through mailing lists.


  Who is the Document Shepherd? Who is the Responsible Area

  Daniel Migault is the Document Shepherd, Suresh Krishnan  is the responsible

(3) Briefly describe the review of this document that was performed by
the Document Shepherd.  If this version of the document is not ready
for publication, please explain why the document is being forwarded to
the IESG.

The document shepherd reviewed the document and address comments to clarify the
draft. Comments have been considered and one was discussed on the mailing list.
The comment bring to the mailing list was about how to clarify a reference and
whether additional text should be added.

(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or
breadth of the reviews that have been performed?


(5) Do portions of the document need review from a particular or from
broader perspective, e.g., security, operational complexity, AAA, DNS,
DHCP, XML, or internationalization? If so, describe the review that
took place.


(6) Describe any specific concerns or issues that the Document Shepherd
has with this document that the Responsible Area Director and/or the
IESG should be aware of? For example, perhaps he or she is uncomfortable
with certain parts of the document, or has concerns whether there really
is a need for it. In any event, if the interested community has
discussed those issues and has indicated that it still wishes to advance
the document, detail those concerns here.

Draft revision have been sent to the int-area mailing list. Presentation was
provided during IETF97. Co-authors have addressed the received comments.

(7) Has each author confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR
disclosures required for full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78
and BCP 79 have already been filed. If not, explain why.

Each authors confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR
disclosures required for full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78
and BCP 79 have already been filed. Michelle confirmed on behalf of Leo.

(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document?
If so, summarize any discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR


(9) How solid is the consensus of the interested community behind this
document? Does it represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals,
with others being silent, or does the interested community as a whole
understand and agree with it?

None opposed. The draft did not raised much comments on the mailing list.
However, people raised comments during the intarea session during the IETF97 in
Seoul (addressed) and the IETF needs to address the issues raised on RFC6890.
My understanding is that considering comments from RFC6890, there is a
consensus over that document.

(10) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme
discontent? If so, please summarise the areas of conflict in separate
email messages to the Responsible Area Director. (It should be in a
separate email because this questionnaire is publicly available.)


(11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this
document. (See and the Internet-Drafts
Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be

Running idnits raises warnings on:
    - IP addresses mentioned in the document, if used for examples are not
    compliant with addresses defined by RFC6890. In fact these IP addresses are
    not used for examples. - RFC 4843 defining ORCHIDv1 is mentioned as a
    reference while RFC7443 defining ORCHIDv2 obsoletes RFC4843.  RFC 4843 was
    mentioned as an informative reference for the allocated block that
    corresponds to ORCHIDv1. This block has been deprecated. The reason for
    having an obsolete reference  RFC 4843 instead of RFC 7343 is that RFC 7343
    does not deprecate the ORCHIDv1 prefix. The IANA section of 4843 defines
    the expiration date of the ORCHIDv1 prefix. RFC 7343 defines the
ORCHIDv2 prefix.

The idnits provides the following output:
  Checking boilerplate required by RFC 5378 and the IETF Trust (see

     No issues found here.

  Checking nits according to

     No issues found here.

  Checking nits according to :

  == There are 15 instances of lines with non-RFC6890-compliant IPv4
     addresses in the document.  If these are example addresses, they should
     be changed.

  == There are 3 instances of lines with private range IPv4 addresses in the
     document.  If these are generic example addresses, they should be changed
     to use any of the ranges defined in RFC 6890 (or successor): 192.0.2.x,
     198.51.100.x or 203.0.113.x.

  == There are 10 instances of lines with non-RFC3849-compliant IPv6
     addresses in the document.  If these are example addresses, they should
     be changed.

  Miscellaneous warnings:

     No issues found here.

  Checking references for intended status: Best Current Practice

     (See RFCs 3967 and 4897 for information about using normative references
     to lower-maturity documents in RFCs)

  -- Looks like a reference, but probably isn't: '1' on line 695
     '[1] Unless allowed by a more specific allocation....'

  -- Looks like a reference, but probably isn't: '2' on line 861
     '| Address Block        | 2002::/16 [2] |...'

  -- Looks like a reference, but probably isn't: '3' on line 800
     '[3] According to the 3+3 Plan outlined in [RFC7954], the terminat...'

  -- Looks like a reference, but probably isn't: '4' on line 803
     '[4] Can be used as a multicast source as well....'

  -- Looks like a reference, but probably isn't: '5' on line 805
     '[5] To be used as EID space by routers enabled by LISP [RFC6830]....'

  -- Looks like a reference, but probably isn't: '6' on line 875
     '[6] See [RFC3056] for details....'

  -- Looks like a reference, but probably isn't: '7' on line 911
     '[7] See [RFC4193] for more details on the routability of Unique-L...'

  -- Obsolete informational reference (is this intentional?): RFC 4843
     (Obsoleted by RFC 7343)

     Summary: 0 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 3 warnings (==), 8 comments (--).

(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review
criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.

This does not apply to the draft.

(13) Have all references within this document been identified as
either normative or informative?

RFC2119 is a normative document as it must be read to understand the current
document. Other references are informative as they are not mandatory to be read
to understand the document.

(14) Are there normative references to documents that are not ready for
advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state? If such normative
references exist, what is the plan for their completion?

No. RFC2119 is the only normative refrence and is ready.

(15) Are there downward normative references references (see RFC 3967)?
If so, list these downward references to support the Area Director in
the Last Call procedure.


(16) Will publication of this document change the status of any existing
RFCs? Are those RFCs listed on the title page header, listed in the
abstract, and discussed in the introduction? If the RFCs are not listed
in the Abstract and Introduction, explain why, and point to the part of
the document where the relationship of this document to the other RFCs
is discussed. If this information is not in the document, explain why
the interested community considers it unnecessary.

This document obsoletes RFC6890. This is specified in the header, the abstract
and in the introduction.

(17) Describe the Document Shepherd's review of the IANA considerations
section, especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the
document. Confirm that all protocol extensions that the document makes
are associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries.
Confirm that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly
identified. Confirm that newly created IANA registries include a
detailed specification of the initial contents for the registry, that
allocations procedures for future registrations are defined, and a
reasonable name for the new registry has been suggested (see RFC 5226).

The document is an IANA section document, so the IANA section is by design
consistent with the document's body. There is no protocol extensions in the
document. The document defines the IANA registries as well as lists the
different IPv4/6 IPv4  Special-Purpose Address Registries

(18) List any new IANA registries that require Expert Review for future
allocations. Provide any public guidance that the IESG would find
useful in selecting the IANA Experts for these new registries.

There is no need for expert review. The document lists a new IANA registry:
Globally Reachable. It has been defined by the IANA itself as a replacement for
the former "global" information.

(19) Describe reviews and automated checks performed by to validate
sections of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code,
BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc.

No additional review has been done.