Formally Deprecating Some IPv4 Options
draft-gp-intarea-obsolete-ipv4-options-iana-02

[Ballot comment]
I support Russ' and Wes' DISCUSSes.
Since I see that they're about to be resolved (for example, I'm happy with Ron's suggestion to Wes' DISCUSS), no point to have a formal DISCUSS in this case.

Regards, Benoit.

[Ballot discuss]

  Sections 2.1 thru 2.5 include a sentence that tells where the option
  was deprecated or that the option was not widely implemented.  There
  is not similar information in Sections 2.6 thru 2.9.  As a result,
  no rationale for deprecating these options is provided.

[Ballot discuss]
I believe the scope of this document is only updating the IANA registry.  No mention of filtering based on this information should be made in the abstract or security considerations.  Doing this makes it questionable why you would later need the referenced opsec document, if you're saying that the IANA registry's state implies what people's security policies should be for packets with deprecated pieces.

In other words, please do not confuse tidying up the IANA registry with recommending a security policy.  Let that later document you're targetting for BCP get the consensus for that part on its own.

[Ballot comment]
As discussed with IANA, the reference fields for the deprecated options will include both the original reference and this document, to provide the full history.

(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?
Proposed Standard

(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 formally deprecates a number of obsolete IP header options.

Working Group Summary:
This is not a working group document. There was only one comment during IETF Last Call and
that supported approval.
Document Quality:
N/A
Personnel:
Who is the Document Shepherd? Scott Bradner
Who is the Responsible Area Director? Ron Bonica

(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.
I reviewed the document when it was in Last Call and felt that it proposed a useful cleanup.

(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed?
I did not find any discussion on the int-area or IETF lists on the document so I would wonder if there had been enough.

(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

(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 WG has discussed those issues and has indicated that it still wishes to advance the document, detail those concerns here.
I think the document is fine - I have no concerns

(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?
N/A - I cannot imagine how deprecating options could have an IPR concern (and no disclosures
have been filed)

(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures.
no

(9) How solid is the WG consensus behind this document? Does it represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others being silent, or does the WG as a whole understand and agree with it?
N/A - not a working group document

(10) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If so, please summaries 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.)
Not that I have seen

(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.
nits suggests that the list of RFCs being updated/obsoleted be in the abstract
also
Downref: Normative reference to an Experimental RFC: RFC 1393
Obsolete informational reference (is this intentional?): RFC 1063
(Obsoleted by RFC 1191)

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

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

(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

(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.
see above - seems to me that obsoleting and exp RFC is fine

(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 WG considers it unnecessary.
yes - updating status
yes - in header
no - in abstract

(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).
looks fine

(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.
N/A

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

IANA has reviewed draft-gp-intarea-obsolete-ipv4-options-iana-02 and
has the following comments:

IANA understands that, upon approval of this document there is a single
IANA Action that needs to be completed.

In the IP Option Numbers Registry, located at:

http://www.iana.org/assignments/ip-parameters

nine IP OPTION NUMBERS are to be deprecated. IANA will mark each of the newly
deprecated option nmbers with an asterisk.

In particular the IP OPTION NUMBERS to be deprecated are named SID, VISA,
ENCODE, EIP, TR, ADDEXT, SDB, DPS, and UMP.

Specifically, the registrations for those IP OPTION NUMBERS will now look like
this:

Copy Class Number Value Name Reference
---- ----- ------ ----- ------------------------------- ------------
1 0 8 136 SID - Stream ID [RFC791,JBP]*
1 0 14 142 VISA - Expermental Access Control [Estrin]*
0 0 15 15 ENCODE - ??? [VerSteeg]*
1 0 17 145 EIP - Extended Internet Protocol[RFC1385]*
0 2 18 82 TR - Traceroute [RFC1393]*
1 0 19 147 ADDEXT - Address Extension [Ullmann IPv7]*
1 0 21 149 SDB - Selective Directed Broadcast[Graff]*
1 0 23 151 DPS - Dynamic Packet State [Malis]*
1 0 24 152 UMP - Upstream Multicast Pkt. [Farinacci]*

IANA understands that this is the only action required to be completed by
IANA upon approval of this document.

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:<br><br>From: The IESG <iesg-secretary@ietf.org>
To: IETF-Announce <ietf-announce@ietf.org>
Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Last Call: <draft-gp-intarea-obsolete-ipv4-options-iana-02.txt> (Formally Deprecating some IPv4 Options) to Internet Standard


The IESG has received a request from an individual submitter to consider
the following document:
- 'Formally Deprecating some IPv4 Options'
  <draft-gp-intarea-obsolete-ipv4-options-iana-02.txt> as Internet
Standard

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 2012-10-22. 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


  A number of IPv4 options have become obsolete in practice, but have
  never been formally deprecated.  This document deprecates such IPv4
  options, thus cleaning up the corresponding IANA registry, and
  serving as a basis for providing advice about the filtering of
  packets containing these options.  Additionally, it requests that the
  status of the corresponding RFCs be changed to "Historic".




The file can be obtained via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-gp-intarea-obsolete-ipv4-options-iana/

IESG discussion can be tracked via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-gp-intarea-obsolete-ipv4-options-iana/ballot/


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