Special-Purpose IP Address Registries
draft-bonica-special-purpose-07

[Ballot comment]
It was agreed on the IESG call that footnote would be added to table 4 to deal with the following issue:

The purpose of this discuss is to discuss whether we need to note in this RFC that - contra to the notes in table 4 -  127/8 addresses are used as addresses for some types of packets in tunnels (precisely because they are addresses that cannot legitimately exist outside a host and the packets are automatically killed if they escape from the tunnel and into the wild).

[Ballot discuss]
The purpose of this discuss is to discuss whether we need to note in this RFC that - contra to the notes in table 4 -  127/8 addresses are used as addresses for some types of packets in tunnels (precisely because they are addresses that cannot legitimately exist outside a host and the packets are automatically killed if they escape from the tunnel and into the wild).

I can live with either decision, but would prefer that we to a positive view one way or the other on this.

Either way, or if people tell me I am misremembering this, I will clear on the call.

[Ballot comment]
One correction though. "IETF Review [RFC 5226]" is the proper wording, which should be added

OLD:
  IANA will update the aforementioned registries as requested in the
  "IANA Considerations" section of an IETF reviewed document.  The
  "IANA Considerations" section must include all of the information
  specified in Section 2.1 of this document.

NEW
  New assignments in the registries require IETF Review [RFC 5226].
  IANA will update the aforementioned registries as requested in the
  "IANA Considerations" section of the IETF reviewed document.  The
  "IANA Considerations" section must include all of the information
  specified in Section 2.1 of this document.

Editorial:
OLD
  o  RFC - The RFC though which the special-purpose address block was
      requested
NEW
  o  RFC - The RFC through which the special-purpose address block was
      requested

[Ballot comment]
This is a holding note whilst I check this out.

I have a recollection that the MPLS OAM uses addresses in the 127/8 class in the packets sent, and am wondering whether this RFC need to note that.

[Ballot comment]
I support the publication of this document, but I have two small issues
that may just be questions of my understanding, or might need a tweak to
the text.

---

The name of the registry field "Reserved" is likely to cause some
confusion since the word has special meaning in most registries. Can I
suggest "Special" or similar?

---

If the value of "Fowradable" is FALSE, can the value of "Reserved" be
TRUE? From the text description of "Reserved" it would appear not, but
from Table 1 it would appear so. The issue comes from the text that says

      This value is "TRUE" if
      the RFC that created the special-purpose address block requires
      all compliant IP implementations to behave in a special way when
      forwarding packets either to or from addresses contained by the
      address block.

You can't behave in a special way when forwarding packet if you are not
allowed to forward packets.

[Ballot comment]
The question of whether this should obsolete (instead of update) 5736 was not yet addressed. Given that I am agnostic on this issue, I'll leave my ballot as "Yes", but I think someone should make an explicit call on this. (Ralph?)

IANA has reviewed draft-bonica-special-purpose-03 and has the following comments:

IANA, a co-author of this document, has worked closely with all the co-authors of this document. Upon approval of the document, the requested actions in the document will result in two refactored registries; additional information published for the current entries; and several new entries.
IANA will also update several footnotes in other registries to refer to the enhanced information in the new registry. IANA will complete all the required actions in the document upon its approval.

Note: The actions requested in this document will not be completed
until the document has been approved for publication as an RFC.

The following Last Call announcement was sent out:

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Last Call:  (Special-Purpose Address Registries) to Best Current Practice


The IESG has received a request from an individual submitter to consider
the following document:
- 'Special-Purpose Address Registries'
  as Best Current Practice

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@ietf.org mailing lists by 2013-01-02. Exceptionally, comments may be
sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the
beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting.

Abstract


  This memo instructs IANA to restructure its IPv4 and IPv6 Special-
  Purpose Address Registries.  Upon restructuring, the aforementioned
  registries will record all special-purpose address blocks,
  maintaining a common set of information regarding each address block.

  This memo updates RFC 5736 and RFC 4773, which define the current
  structure of the IPv4 and IPv6 Special-Purpose Address Registries.
  It also obsoletes RFC 5735 and RFC 5156 which document special-
  purpose address blocks that are not currently, but will in the
  future, be recorded in the IPv4 and IPv6 Special-Purpose Address
  Registries.




The file can be obtained via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-bonica-special-purpose/

IESG discussion can be tracked via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-bonica-special-purpose/ballot/


No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D.

Shepherd cover document:

Document 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?

  This document is submitted for publication as a BCP.  The title page indicates that.  As this is direction to the IANA, it needs clear status indicating that this is the current practice.  Also, the earlier creation of the IPv4 special use registry was by BCP.

(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

  This memo instructs IANA to restructure its IPv4 and IPv6 Special-
  Purpose Address Registries.  Upon restructuring, the aforementioned
  registries will record all special-purpose address blocks,
  maintaining a common set of information regarding each address
  block.

Working Group Summary

This document is not the product of an IETF Working Group.

Document Quality

The registration procedures selected here were prepared in
conjunction with the IANA, and are believed to be useful to
the community and effective for the registry maintainer.

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?

Personnel

Joel Halpern is the Document Shepherd.  Ralph Droms is the
sponsoring Area Director.

(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 has read and reviewed the document.  It is
  clear, useful, and readable.

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

  No, the shepherd has no concerns about the document.

(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.

  No special reviews other than the community Last Call process
  are needed for this document

(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.

  None

(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.

  Yes, this has been confirmed.

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

  No.


(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?

  The IANA, who is most directly affected by this document, helped
  write it.

(10) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme
discontent? If so, please summarize 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.)

  There have been no threats of appeal o indications of
  discontent with this document.

(11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this
document. (See http://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts
Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be
thorough.

  While ID-nits complains about the IP Addresses in this document
  not being experimental, the usage here are correct as they
  identify the actual address prefixes to be noted in the registry.

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

  There was no formal review, as no formal language or type
  review is applicable.  The document does use consistent and
  clear notation to describe each reservation.  That notation
  matches the fields the document identifies for the registry.

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

  Due to the nature of this document, all references are
  Informational, and are indicated as such.

(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, there are no normative reference dependencies, as there are no
  normative references.

(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.

  No, there are no downward normative references, as there are no
  normative references.

(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 explicitly Obsoletes two other RFCs, and Updates
  two other RFCs.  These are indicated in the header, and
  described clearly and appropriately in the Abstract and 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).

  This document consists primarily of an IANA considerations section.
  The twp registries being restructured are clearly described, and
  their initial contents are well-specified.

(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.

  The two registries being restructured are specified to require
  IESG Approval for changes.  Thus, o expert review guidance is
  needed.

(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.

  None, as none apply.