Skip to main content

Administration of the IANA Special Purpose IPv6 Address Block
draft-huston-ipv6-iana-specials-01

Revision differences

Document history

Date Rev. By Action
2012-08-22
01 (System) post-migration administrative database adjustment to the No Objection position for Lars Eggert
2006-11-08
01 (System) Request for Early review by SECDIR Completed. Reviewer: Jürgen Schönwälder.
2006-11-08
01 (System) Request for Early review by SECDIR is assigned to Juergen Quittek
2006-11-08
01 (System) Request for Early review by SECDIR is assigned to Juergen Quittek
2006-10-23
01 Amy Vezza State Changes to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent by Amy Vezza
2006-10-17
01 Amy Vezza IESG state changed to Approved-announcement sent
2006-10-17
01 Amy Vezza IESG has approved the document
2006-10-17
01 Amy Vezza Closed "Approve" ballot
2006-10-17
01 Amy Vezza State Changes to Approved-announcement to be sent from IESG Evaluation::AD Followup by Amy Vezza
2006-10-04
01 Lars Eggert [Ballot Position Update] Position for Lars Eggert has been changed to No Objection from Discuss by Lars Eggert
2006-10-03
01 Brian Carpenter
[Ballot comment]
Possible editorial clarification to the first sentence of the last paragraph of section 2:

OLD:
  This document directs IANA to open a …
[Ballot comment]
Possible editorial clarification to the first sentence of the last paragraph of section 2:

OLD:
  This document directs IANA to open a Special Purpose IPv6 address
  registry for the management of these IANA-designated address blocks.

NEW:
  The present document directs IANA to open a Special Purpose IPv6 address
  registry for the management of these IANA-designated address blocks.
2006-10-03
01 Brian Carpenter [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded by Brian Carpenter
2006-09-29
01 (System) Removed from agenda for telechat - 2006-09-28
2006-09-28
01 Amy Vezza State Changes to IESG Evaluation::AD Followup from IESG Evaluation by Amy Vezza
2006-09-28
01 Lisa Dusseault [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Lisa Dusseault
2006-09-28
01 Bill Fenner [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Bill Fenner
2006-09-28
01 Mark Townsley [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Mark Townsley
2006-09-28
01 Magnus Westerlund [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Magnus Westerlund
2006-09-28
01 David Kessens [Ballot comment]
I was part of the Adhoc team which was involved with this document
2006-09-27
01 David Kessens [Ballot Position Update] New position, Recuse, has been recorded by David Kessens
2006-09-27
01 Jari Arkko [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Jari Arkko
2006-09-27
01 Yoshiko Fong
IANA Last Call Comment:

Comment/question: The policy defined in the draft says
IANA must record the date the allocation is made. In the
case of …
IANA Last Call Comment:

Comment/question: The policy defined in the draft says
IANA must record the date the allocation is made. In the
case of an RFC should this be the day IANA RECORDS the
allocation or the date the RFC is PUBLISHED ?

[rule #3]


Action:

Upon approval of this document, the IANA will create the following
registry "IANA IPv6 Address Special Purpose Registry" located at
http://www.iana.org/assignments/TBD
Initial contents of this registry will be:

This registry records IANA address designations from the IANA-managed
Special Purpose IPv6 address pool.[RFC-huston-ipv6-iana-specials]

The registration policy is RFC publication.
??? (Note: document says "IESG-reviewed RFC's"


Contents:
Address block REF Date Expires Scope Registrant-info Routing
2001:0000::/23 [RFC2928] Sept 2000 never Testing IESG Routable


Allocation rules for this registry from [RFC-huston-ipv6-iana-specials]
The IANA IPv6 Special Purpose Address Registry shall record
for all current address designations undertaken by IANA:

The designated address prefix.
The RFC that called for the IANA address designation.
The date the designation was made.
The date the use designation is to be terminated (if specified
as a limited-use designation).
The nature of the purpose of the designated address (unicast
experiment or protocol service anycast).
If the purpose is an experimental unicast application, as
distinct from an anycast service address, then the registry
will also identify the entity and related contact details to
whom the address designation has been made.
The registry will also note for each designation the intended
routing scope of the address, indicating whether the address
is intended to be routable only in scoped, local or private
contexts, or whether the address prefix is intended to
be routed globally.


The IANA registry shall note as a general comment that address
prefixes listed in the Special Purpose Address Registry are not
guaranteed routability in any particular local or global context.

IANA will not maintain further sub-registries for any special
purpose address block designated according to this direction.


References:

[RFC2928]
[RFC-huston-ipv6-iana-specials]


-----
We understand the above to be the only IANA Actions for this document.
2006-09-26
01 Lars Eggert
[Ballot comment]
Section 1., paragraph 1:
>    This is a direction to IANA concerning the management of the IANA
>    Special Purpose IPv6 …
[Ballot comment]
Section 1., paragraph 1:
>    This is a direction to IANA concerning the management of the IANA
>    Special Purpose IPv6 address assignment registry.

  Nit: Consider removing (identical to abstract).
2006-09-26
01 Lars Eggert
[Ballot discuss]
Section 3., paragraph 2:
>    Further assignments of address space to IANA for
>    subsequent designation of address prefixes for the …
[Ballot discuss]
Section 3., paragraph 2:
>    Further assignments of address space to IANA for
>    subsequent designation of address prefixes for the purposes listed
>    here shall be undertaken only in response to direction to IANA
>    provided by the IETF in a IESG-reviewed RFC document.

  DISCUSS: It's unclear to me what policy "an IESG-reviewed RFC
  document" attempts to describe. Is it "RFC Required", "IETF Review" or
  maybe even "IESG Approval"? See
  draft-narten-iana-considerations-rfc2434bis-04.txt. Note that I fully
  expect to clear this DISCUSS during Thursday's telechat.
2006-09-26
01 Lars Eggert [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded by Lars Eggert
2006-09-26
01 Dan Romascanu State Changes to IESG Evaluation from Waiting for Writeup by Dan Romascanu
2006-09-25
01 Russ Housley
[Ballot comment]
From SecDir Review by Juergen Schoenwaelder:

  I suggest to change the title to make it clear for the reader that
  this …
[Ballot comment]
From SecDir Review by Juergen Schoenwaelder:

  I suggest to change the title to make it clear for the reader that
  this document talks about IPv6 address blocks by inserting "IPv6" into
  the title:

    Administration of the IANA Special Purpose IPv6 Address Block
2006-09-25
01 Russ Housley [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Russ Housley
2006-09-24
01 Cullen Jennings [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Cullen Jennings
2006-09-20
01 Dan Romascanu
[Ballot comment]
1. Comment from Juergen Schoenwaelder who reviewed the document on behalf of the security directorate:

I suggest to change the title to make …
[Ballot comment]
1. Comment from Juergen Schoenwaelder who reviewed the document on behalf of the security directorate:

I suggest to change the title to make it clear for the reader that this document talks about IPv6 address blocks by inserting "IPv6" into the title:

    Administration of the IANA Special Purpose IPv6 Address Block

2. idnits problems:

idnits 1.109

tmp/draft-huston-ipv6-iana-specials-01.txt:


  Checking nits according to http://www.ietf.org/ID-Checklist.html:
   
    Checking conformance with RFC 3978/3979 boilerplate...

  * The document seems to lack an RFC 3978 Section 5.4 Reference to BCP 78.

    RFC 3978 Section 5.4 paragraph 2 text:
    "This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions
    contained in BCP 78, and except as set forth therein, the authors
    retain all their rights."

  * The document seems to lack an RFC 3978 Section 5.5 Disclaimer.

    RFC 3978bis Section 5.5 text:
    "This document and the information contained herein are provided on an
    "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS
    OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY, THE IETF TRUST AND
    THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS
    OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF
    THE INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED
    WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE."

  * The document seems to lack an RFC 3979 Section 5, para 2 IPR Disclosure
    Acknowledgement -- however, there's a paragraph with a matching beginning.
    Boilerplate error?

    RFC 3979 Section 5 paragraph 2 text:
    "Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any
    assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an
    attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of
    such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this
    specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at
    http://www.ietf.org/ipr."
 
    ... text found in draft:
    "Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any
    assurances of license")
.........................^


  * The document seems to lack an RFC 3979 Section 5, para 3 IPR Disclosure
    Invitation.

    RFC 3979 Section 5 paragraph 3 text:
    "The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any
    copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary
    rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement
    this standard.  Please address the information to the IETF at
    ietf-ipr@ietf.org."
2006-09-20
01 Dan Romascanu Placed on agenda for telechat - 2006-09-28 by Dan Romascanu
2006-09-20
01 Dan Romascanu [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Dan Romascanu
2006-09-20
01 Dan Romascanu Ballot has been issued by Dan Romascanu
2006-09-20
01 Dan Romascanu Created "Approve" ballot
2006-06-26
01 (System) State has been changed to Waiting for Writeup from In Last Call by system
2006-05-29
01 Amy Vezza Last call sent
2006-05-29
01 Amy Vezza State Changes to In Last Call from Last Call Requested by Amy Vezza
2006-05-29
01 Dan Romascanu Last Call was requested by Dan Romascanu
2006-05-29
01 (System) Ballot writeup text was added
2006-05-29
01 (System) Last call text was added
2006-05-29
01 (System) Ballot approval text was added
2006-05-29
01 Dan Romascanu State Changes to Last Call Requested from AD Evaluation by Dan Romascanu
2006-05-29
01 Dan Romascanu Shepherding AD has been changed to Dan Romascanu from David Kessens
2005-12-28
01 (System) New version available: draft-huston-ipv6-iana-specials-01.txt
2005-11-30
01 David Kessens Draft Added by David Kessens in state AD Evaluation
2005-11-14
00 (System) New version available: draft-huston-ipv6-iana-specials-00.txt