Generic Address Assignment Option for 6LoWPAN Neighbor Discovery
draft-ietf-6lo-nd-gaao-11

Document History

1. Does the working group (WG) consensus represent the strong concurrence of a
few individuals, with others being silent, or did it reach broad agreement?

The working group reached broad agreement.

2. Was there controversy about particular points, or were there decisions where
the consensus was particularly rough?

In IETF 121 (Dublin), some 6man participants expressed concerns about why not use DHCPv6 instead of the mechanism defined in this document (GAAO).
Subsequently, the authors published version -02 of the draft, providing new text with motivation about issues of DCHPv6 in LLNs. Later, during the WGLC, where the 6man mailing list was CC'ed, one 6man participant (Lorenzo Colitti) still expressed similar concerns about why not use DHCPv6 instead of GAAO. Subsequently, the authors replied to Lorenzo on the mailing lists (both 6lo and 6man), and published revision -09 of the draft, which is the latest version of the draft as of the writing. This last revision underwent a major rework in order to make more explicit statements about DHCPv6 issues in LLNs. However, in IETF 125, Lorenzo still expressed that he was not convinced about GAAO being needed when DCHPv6 can achieve the same purpose. Also in IETF 125, a 6man chair expressed that it would be good to get the attention of the 6man WG on this matter.  Aiming to address the concerns, the latest version of GAAO as of the last update of this shepherd writeup, that is -10, has added further details about the benefits of GAAO compared with DHCPv6, including a dedicated appendix (Appendix A). 

3. 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.)

No. As of today, Lorenzo Colitti has expressed concerns, and a rather negative opinion on this document as described above, but he has not threatened an appeal and, in the shepherd's opinion, he has not expressed extreme discontent.

4. For protocol documents, are there existing implementations of the contents of
the document? Have a significant number of potential implementers indicated
plans to implement? Are any existing implementations reported somewhere,
either in the document itself (as RFC 7942 recommends) or elsewhere
(where)?

From the authors’ side, this document should be implemented to support PASA (draft-ietf-6lo-path-aware-semantic-addressing).
For the latter, authors (of PASA) expressed that an implementation is underway, and some of their
partners are interested in the datacenter networks monitoring use case, but there are not deployments yet.


Additional Reviews

5. Do the contents of this document closely interact with technologies in other
IETF working groups or external organizations, and would it therefore benefit
from their review? Have those reviews occurred? If yes, describe which
reviews took place.

6man is the most relevant related WG, as the draft defines an extension to IPv6 ND for LLNs.
The WGLC included the 6man WG in CC', triggering the feedback from Lorenzo Colitti described in the response to Question 2.

There were also two Early reviews carried out (on version -03 of the document): one from the INTDIR, carried out by Brian Haberman,
and another one from the GENART, carried out by Joel Halpern. The authors addressed the comments received, and these reviewers
expressed that they were satisfied with the related document updates.

6. Describe how the document meets any required formal expert review criteria,
such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.

Not applicable.

7. If the document contains a YANG module, has the final version of the module
been checked with any of the recommended validation tools for syntax and
formatting validation? If there are any resulting errors or warnings, what is
the justification for not fixing them at this time? Does the YANG module
comply with the Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA) as specified
in RFC 8342?

Not applicable.

8. Describe reviews and automated checks performed to validate sections of the
final version of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code,
BNF rules, MIB definitions, CBOR's CDDL, etc.

Not applicable.


Document Shepherd Checks

9. Based on the shepherd's review of the document, is it their opinion that this
document is needed, clearly written, complete, correctly designed, and ready
to be handed off to the responsible Area Director?

This document (version -07) was reviewed by the shepherd. The review did not encounter major issues. Most of the shepherd's comments were editorial. The few shepherd's technical comments were of minor nature, although they were needed for clarity and completeness of the specification. As a result, the authors updated the draft, addressing the shepherd's comments, leading to revision -08 of the draft. Subsequently, Lorenzo Colitti's concerns mentioned above (regarding why not use DHCPv6 instead), prompted another draft update (-09). In the shepherd's opinion, the concerns were addressed and the document was ready to be forwarded to the IESG. However, as described above, Lorenzo Colitti expressed further concerns in IETF 125, and the authors updated once again the document (-10) to provide further clarification aimed to address Lorenzo's concerns. As of the writing, -10 is the latest version of the draft.

10. Several IETF Areas have assembled lists of common issues that their
reviewers encounter. For which areas have such issues been identified
and addressed? For which does this still need to happen in subsequent
reviews?

This specification belongs to the Internet Area. It mainly enables a node to request to be assigned an IPv6 address or a prefix from neighboring routers. Address or prefix assignment can be carried out algorithmically. No particular issues have been identified, from the Internet Area or other areas.

11. What type of RFC publication is being requested on the IETF stream (Best
Current Practice, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard,
Informational, Experimental or Historic)? Why is this the proper type
of RFC? Do all Datatracker state attributes correctly reflect this intent?

The intended status of the document is 'Standards Track'. This intended status is indicated in the document header. This is the proper type of RFC for the document, since it defines a new IPv6 Neighbor Discovery (ND) Option called Generic Address Assignment Option (GAAO), which allows a node to issue an address/prefix request to neighboring routers; the publication of GAAO as Proposed Standard is required to enforce interoperability between devices implementing it. GAAO complements the existing suite of ND optimizations for 6LoWPAN/6lo.

12. Have reasonable efforts been made to remind all authors of the intellectual
property rights (IPR) disclosure obligations described in BCP 79? To
the best of your knowledge, have all required disclosures been filed? If
not, explain why. If yes, summarize any relevant discussion, including links
to publicly-available messages when applicable.

Each author has confirmed that they are not aware of IPR that would read on this document, as shown in the responses to the message linked below:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/6lo/bwkjMdGH3zxsK7u8APzEt6O476Q

13. Has each author, editor, and contributor shown their willingness to be
listed as such? If the total number of authors and editors on the front page
is greater than five, please provide a justification.

Yes, each author has shown their willingness to be listed as such. In the latest version of the draft, there are three authors. There are no contributors or editors.

14. Document any remaining I-D nits in this document. Simply running the idnits
tool is not enough; please review the "Content Guidelines" on
authors.ietf.org. (Also note that the current idnits tool generates
some incorrect warnings; a rewrite is underway.)

No issues found after using the ID nits tool (https://author-tools.ietf.org/idnits).
The document follows the content guidelines pointed to by the above link.
(see https://authors.ietf.org/recommended-content)
Regarding a possible implementation status section, such a section is probably not worth in this document, since the authors explain that there is no currently available implementation. 

15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the IESG
Statement on Normative and Informative References.

References are correctly classified into normative or informative.

16. List any normative references that are not freely available to anyone. Did
the community have sufficient access to review any such normative
references?

All normative references are freely available to everyone.

17. Are there any normative downward references (see RFC 3967 and BCP
97) that are not already listed in the DOWNREF registry? If so,
list them.

No.

18. Are there normative references to documents that are not ready to be
submitted to the IESG for publication or are otherwise in an unclear state?
If so, what is the plan for their completion?

No.

19. Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? If
so, does the Datatracker metadata correctly reflect this and are those RFCs
listed on the title page, in the abstract, and discussed in the
introduction? If not, explain why and point to the part of the document
where the relationship of this document to these other RFCs is discussed.

No. This document will not change the status of any existing RFCs.

20. 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 aspects of the document requiring IANA assignments are
associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm
that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm
that each newly created IANA registry specifies its initial contents,
allocations procedures, and a reasonable name (see RFC 8126).

This document contains 4 IANA requests:
- To make an addition to the "IPv6 Neighbor Discovery Option Formats" registry (under the registry group "Internet Control Message Protocol version 6 (ICMPv6) Parameters").
- To make an addition to the "6LoWPAN Capability Bits" registry (under the registry group "Internet Control Message Protocol version 6 (ICMPv6) Parameters").
- To make an addition to the "Address Registration Option Status Values" registry (under the registry group "Internet Control Message Protocol version 6 (ICMPv6) Parameters").
- To create a new registry group named "Generic Address Assignment Option".

These requests are consistent with the body of the document, and the ones that request additions to existing IANA registries clearly identify the appropriate IANA registries.

Following RFC 8126, the requested new registry specifies its initial contents and allocation procedures, and it has a reasonable name.

21. List any new IANA registries that require Designated Expert Review for
future allocations. Are the instructions to the Designated Expert clear?
Please include suggestions of designated experts, if appropriate.

The new IANA registry requested by this document states that values from that registry can be assigned by IANA on a "First Come, First Served" basis
according to RFC 8126. Therefore, "Expert Review" is not requested.

Document History

1. Does the working group (WG) consensus represent the strong concurrence of a
few individuals, with others being silent, or did it reach broad agreement?

The working group reached broad agreement.

2. Was there controversy about particular points, or were there decisions where
the consensus was particularly rough?

In IETF 121 (Dublin), some 6man participants expressed concerns about why not use DHCPv6 instead of the mechanism defined in this document (GAAO).
Subsequently, the authors published version -02 of the draft, providing new text with motivation about issues of DCHPv6 in LLNs. Later, during the WGLC, where the 6man mailing list was CC'ed, one 6man participant (Lorenzo Colitti) still expressed similar concerns about why not use DHCPv6 instead of GAAO. Subsequently, the authors replied to Lorenzo on the mailing lists (both 6lo and 6man), and published revision -09 of the draft, which is the latest version of the draft as of the writing. This last revision underwent a major rework in order to make more explicit statements about DHCPv6 issues in LLNs.

3. 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.)

No. As of today, Lorenzo Colitti has expressed concerns, but he has not threatened an appeal and, in the shepherd's opinion, he has not expressed extreme discontent. To the knowledge of this shepherd, he has not replied to the last message by the authors and has not reacted to the last revision of the GAAO draft (-09).

4. For protocol documents, are there existing implementations of the contents of
the document? Have a significant number of potential implementers indicated
plans to implement? Are any existing implementations reported somewhere,
either in the document itself (as RFC 7942 recommends) or elsewhere
(where)?

From the authors’ side, this document should be implemented to support PASA (draft-ietf-6lo-path-aware-semantic-addressing).
For the latter, authors (of PASA) expressed that an implementation is underway, and some of their
partners are interested in the datacenter networks monitoring use case, but there are not deployments yet.


Additional Reviews

5. Do the contents of this document closely interact with technologies in other
IETF working groups or external organizations, and would it therefore benefit
from their review? Have those reviews occurred? If yes, describe which
reviews took place.

6man is the most relevant related WG, as the draft defines an extension to IPv6 ND for LLNs.
The WGLC included the 6man WG in CC', triggering the feedback from Lorenzo Colitti described in the response to Question 2.

There were also two Early reviews carried out (on version -03 of the document): one from the INTDIR, carried out by Brian Haberman,
and another one from the GENART, carried out by Joel Halpern. The authors addressed the comments received, and these reviewers
expressed that they were satisfied with the related document updates.

6. Describe how the document meets any required formal expert review criteria,
such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.

Not applicable.

7. If the document contains a YANG module, has the final version of the module
been checked with any of the recommended validation tools for syntax and
formatting validation? If there are any resulting errors or warnings, what is
the justification for not fixing them at this time? Does the YANG module
comply with the Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA) as specified
in RFC 8342?

Not applicable.

8. Describe reviews and automated checks performed to validate sections of the
final version of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code,
BNF rules, MIB definitions, CBOR's CDDL, etc.

Not applicable.


Document Shepherd Checks

9. Based on the shepherd's review of the document, is it their opinion that this
document is needed, clearly written, complete, correctly designed, and ready
to be handed off to the responsible Area Director?

This document (version -07) was reviewed by the shepherd. The review did not encounter major issues. Most of the shepherd's comments were editorial. The few shepherd's technical comments were of minor nature, although they were needed for clarity and completeness of the specification. As a result, the authors updated the draft, addressing the shepherd's comments, leading to revision -08 of the draft. Subsequently, Lorenzo Colitti's concerns mentioned above (regarding why not use DHCPv6 instead), prompted another draft update (-09). In the shepherd's opinion, the concerns are addressed, and the document is now ready to be forwarded to the IESG.

10. Several IETF Areas have assembled lists of common issues that their
reviewers encounter. For which areas have such issues been identified
and addressed? For which does this still need to happen in subsequent
reviews?

This specification belongs to the Internet Area. It mainly enables a node to request to be assigned an IPv6 address or a prefix from neighboring routers. Address or prefix assignment can be carried out algorithmically. No particular issues have been identified, from the Internet Area or other areas.

11. What type of RFC publication is being requested on the IETF stream (Best
Current Practice, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard,
Informational, Experimental or Historic)? Why is this the proper type
of RFC? Do all Datatracker state attributes correctly reflect this intent?

The intended status of the document is 'Standards Track'. This intended status is indicated in the document header. This is the proper type of RFC for the document, since it defines a new IPv6 Neighbor Discovery (ND) Option called Generic Address Assignment Option (GAAO), which allows a node to issue an address/prefix request to neighboring routers. GAAO complements the existing suite of ND optimizations for 6LoWPAN/6lo.

12. Have reasonable efforts been made to remind all authors of the intellectual
property rights (IPR) disclosure obligations described in BCP 79? To
the best of your knowledge, have all required disclosures been filed? If
not, explain why. If yes, summarize any relevant discussion, including links
to publicly-available messages when applicable.

Each author has confirmed that they are not aware of IPR that would read on this document, as shown in the responses to the message linked below:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/6lo/bwkjMdGH3zxsK7u8APzEt6O476Q

13. Has each author, editor, and contributor shown their willingness to be
listed as such? If the total number of authors and editors on the front page
is greater than five, please provide a justification.

Yes, each author has shown their willingness to be listed as such. In the latest version of the draft, there are three authors. There are no contributors or editors.

14. Document any remaining I-D nits in this document. Simply running the idnits
tool is not enough; please review the "Content Guidelines" on
authors.ietf.org. (Also note that the current idnits tool generates
some incorrect warnings; a rewrite is underway.)

No issues found after using the ID nits tool (https://author-tools.ietf.org/idnits).
The document follows the content guidelines pointed to by the above link.
(see https://authors.ietf.org/recommended-content)
Regarding a possible implementation status section, such a section is probably not worth in this document, since the authors explain that there is no currently available implementation. 

15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the IESG
Statement on Normative and Informative References.

References are correctly classified into normative or informative.

16. List any normative references that are not freely available to anyone. Did
the community have sufficient access to review any such normative
references?

All normative references are freely available to everyone.

17. Are there any normative downward references (see RFC 3967 and BCP
97) that are not already listed in the DOWNREF registry? If so,
list them.

No.

18. Are there normative references to documents that are not ready to be
submitted to the IESG for publication or are otherwise in an unclear state?
If so, what is the plan for their completion?

No.

19. Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? If
so, does the Datatracker metadata correctly reflect this and are those RFCs
listed on the title page, in the abstract, and discussed in the
introduction? If not, explain why and point to the part of the document
where the relationship of this document to these other RFCs is discussed.

No. This document will not change the status of any existing RFCs.

20. 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 aspects of the document requiring IANA assignments are
associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm
that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm
that each newly created IANA registry specifies its initial contents,
allocations procedures, and a reasonable name (see RFC 8126).

This document contains 4 IANA requests:
- To make an addition to the "IPv6 Neighbor Discovery Option Formats" registry (under the registry group "Internet Control Message Protocol version 6 (ICMPv6) Parameters").
- To make an addition to the "6LoWPAN Capability Bits" registry (under the registry group "Internet Control Message Protocol version 6 (ICMPv6) Parameters").
- To make an addition to the "Address Registration Option Status Values" registry (under the registry group "Internet Control Message Protocol version 6 (ICMPv6) Parameters").
- To create a new registry group named "Generic Address Assignment Option".

These requests are consistent with the body of the document, and the ones that request additions to existing IANA registries clearly identify the appropriate IANA registries.

Following RFC 8126, the requested new registry specifies its initial contents and allocation procedures, and it has a reasonable name.

21. List any new IANA registries that require Designated Expert Review for
future allocations. Are the instructions to the Designated Expert clear?
Please include suggestions of designated experts, if appropriate.

The new IANA registry requested by this document states that values from that registry can be assigned by IANA on a "First Come, First Served" basis
according to RFC 8126. Therefore, "Expert Review" is not requested.

Document History

1. Does the working group (WG) consensus represent the strong concurrence of a
few individuals, with others being silent, or did it reach broad agreement?

The working group reached broad agreement.

2. Was there controversy about particular points, or were there decisions where
the consensus was particularly rough?

In IETF 121 (Dublin), some 6man participants expressed concerns about why not use DHCPv6 instead of the mechanism defined in this document (GAAO).
Subsequently, the authors published version -02 of the draft, providing new text with motivation about issues of DCHPv6 in LLNs. Later, during the WGLC, where the 6man mailing list was CC'ed, one 6man participant (Lorenzo Colitti) still expressed similar concerns about why not use DHCPv6 instead of GAAO. Subsequently, the authors replied to Lorenzo on the mailing lists (both 6lo and 6man), and published revision -09 of the draft, which is the latest version of the draft as of the writing. This last revision underwent a major rework in order to make more explicit statements about DHCPv6 issues in LLNs.

3. 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.)

No. As of today, Lorenzo Colitti has expressed concerns, but he has not threatened an appeal and, in the shepherd's opinion, he has not expressed extreme discontent. To the knowledge of this shepherd, he has not replied to the last message by the authors and has not reacted to the last revision of the GAAO draft (-09).

4. For protocol documents, are there existing implementations of the contents of
the document? Have a significant number of potential implementers indicated
plans to implement? Are any existing implementations reported somewhere,
either in the document itself (as RFC 7942 recommends) or elsewhere
(where)?

From the authors’ side, this document should be implemented to support PASA (draft-ietf-6lo-path-aware-semantic-addressing).
For the latter, authors (of PASA) expressed that an implementation is underway, and some of their
partners are interested in the datacenter networks monitoring use case, but there are not deployments yet.


Additional Reviews

5. Do the contents of this document closely interact with technologies in other
IETF working groups or external organizations, and would it therefore benefit
from their review? Have those reviews occurred? If yes, describe which
reviews took place.

6man is the most relevant related WG, as the draft defines an extension to IPv6 ND for LLNs.
The WGLC included the 6man WG in CC', triggering the feedback from Lorenzo Colitti described in the response to Question 2.

There were also two Early reviews carried out (on version -03 of the document): one from the INTDIR, carried out by Brian Haberman,
and another one from the GENART, carried out by Joel Halpern. The authors addressed the comments received, and these reviewers
expressed that they were satisfied with the related document updates.

6. Describe how the document meets any required formal expert review criteria,
such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.

Not applicable.

7. If the document contains a YANG module, has the final version of the module
been checked with any of the recommended validation tools for syntax and
formatting validation? If there are any resulting errors or warnings, what is
the justification for not fixing them at this time? Does the YANG module
comply with the Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA) as specified
in RFC 8342?

Not applicable.

8. Describe reviews and automated checks performed to validate sections of the
final version of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code,
BNF rules, MIB definitions, CBOR's CDDL, etc.

Not applicable.


Document Shepherd Checks

9. Based on the shepherd's review of the document, is it their opinion that this
document is needed, clearly written, complete, correctly designed, and ready
to be handed off to the responsible Area Director?

This document (version -07) was reviewed by the shepherd. The review did not encounter major issues. Most of the shepherd's comments were editorial. The few shepherd's technical comments were of minor nature, although they were needed for clarity and completeness of the specification. As a result, the authors updated the draft, addressing the shepherd's comments, leading to revision -08 of the draft. Subsequently, Lorenzo Colitti's concerns mentioned above (regarding why not use DHCPv6 instead), prompted another draft update (-09). In the shepherd's opinion, the concerns are addressed, and the document is now ready to be forwarded to the IESG.

10. Several IETF Areas have assembled lists of common issues that their
reviewers encounter. For which areas have such issues been identified
and addressed? For which does this still need to happen in subsequent
reviews?

This specification belongs to the Internet Area. It mainly enables a node to request to be assigned an IPv6 address or a prefix from neighboring routers. Address or prefix assignment can be carried out algorithmically. No particular issues have been identified, from the Internet Area or other areas.

11. What type of RFC publication is being requested on the IETF stream (Best
Current Practice, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard,
Informational, Experimental or Historic)? Why is this the proper type
of RFC? Do all Datatracker state attributes correctly reflect this intent?

The intended status of the document is 'Standards Track'. This intended status is indicated in the document header. This is the proper type of RFC for the document, since it defines a new IPv6 Neighbor Discovery (ND) Option called Generic Address Assignment Option (GAAO), which allows a node to issue an address/prefix request to neighboring routers. GAAO complements the existing suite of ND optimizations for 6LoWPAN/6lo.

12. Have reasonable efforts been made to remind all authors of the intellectual
property rights (IPR) disclosure obligations described in BCP 79? To
the best of your knowledge, have all required disclosures been filed? If
not, explain why. If yes, summarize any relevant discussion, including links
to publicly-available messages when applicable.

Each author has confirmed that they are not aware of IPR that would read on this document, as shown in the responses to the message linked below:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/6lo/bwkjMdGH3zxsK7u8APzEt6O476Q

13. Has each author, editor, and contributor shown their willingness to be
listed as such? If the total number of authors and editors on the front page
is greater than five, please provide a justification.

Yes, each author has shown their willingness to be listed as such. In the latest version of the draft, there are three authors. There are no contributors or editors.

14. Document any remaining I-D nits in this document. Simply running the idnits
tool is not enough; please review the "Content Guidelines" on
authors.ietf.org. (Also note that the current idnits tool generates
some incorrect warnings; a rewrite is underway.)

No issues found after using the ID nits tool (https://author-tools.ietf.org/idnits).
The document follows the content guidelines pointed to by the above link.
(see https://authors.ietf.org/recommended-content)
Regarding a possible implementation status section, such a section is probably not worth in this document, since the authors explain that there is no currently available implementation. 

15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the IESG
Statement on Normative and Informative References.

References are correctly classified into normative or informative.

16. List any normative references that are not freely available to anyone. Did
the community have sufficient access to review any such normative
references?

All normative references are freely available to everyone.

17. Are there any normative downward references (see RFC 3967 and BCP
97) that are not already listed in the DOWNREF registry? If so,
list them.

No.

18. Are there normative references to documents that are not ready to be
submitted to the IESG for publication or are otherwise in an unclear state?
If so, what is the plan for their completion?

No.

19. Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? If
so, does the Datatracker metadata correctly reflect this and are those RFCs
listed on the title page, in the abstract, and discussed in the
introduction? If not, explain why and point to the part of the document
where the relationship of this document to these other RFCs is discussed.

No. This document will not change the status of any existing RFCs.

20. 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 aspects of the document requiring IANA assignments are
associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm
that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm
that each newly created IANA registry specifies its initial contents,
allocations procedures, and a reasonable name (see RFC 8126).

This document contains 4 IANA requests:
- To make an addition to the "IPv6 Neighbor Discovery Option Formats" registry (under the registry group "Internet Control Message Protocol version 6 (ICMPv6) Parameters").
- To make an addition to the "6LoWPAN Capability Bits" registry (under the registry group "Internet Control Message Protocol version 6 (ICMPv6) Parameters").
- To make an addition to the "Address Registration Option Status Values" registry (under the registry group "Internet Control Message Protocol version 6 (ICMPv6) Parameters").
- To create a new registry group named "Generic Address Assignment Option".

These requests are consistent with the body of the document, and the ones that request additions to existing IANA registries clearly identify the appropriate IANA registries.

Following RFC 8126, the requested new registry specifies its initial contents and allocation procedures, and it has a reasonable name.

21. List any new IANA registries that require Designated Expert Review for
future allocations. Are the instructions to the Designated Expert clear?
Please include suggestions of designated experts, if appropriate.

The new IANA registry requested by this document states that values from that registry can be assigned by IANA on a "First Come, First Served" basis
according to RFC 8126. Therefore, "Expert Review" is not requested.

Document History

1. Does the working group (WG) consensus represent the strong concurrence of a
few individuals, with others being silent, or did it reach broad agreement?

The working group reached broad agreement.

2. Was there controversy about particular points, or were there decisions where
the consensus was particularly rough?

In IETF 121 (Dublin), some 6man participants expressed concerns about why not use DHCPv6 instead of the mechanism defined in this document (GAAO).
Subsequently, the authors published version -02 of the draft, providing new text with motivation about issues of DCHPv6 in LLNs. During the WGLC, where the 6man mailing list was CC'ed, one 6man participant (Lorenzo Colitti) still expressed similar concerns about why not use DHCPv6 instead of GAAO. Subsequently, the authors replied to Lorenzo on the mailing lists (both 6lo and 6man), and published revision -09 of the draft, which is the latest version of the draft as of the writing. This last revision underwent a major rework in order to make more explicit statements about DHCPv6 issues in LLNs.

3. 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.)

No. As of today, Lorenzo Colitti has expressed concerns, but he has not threatened an appeal and, in the shepherd's opinion, he has not expressed extreme discontent. To the knowledge of this shepherd, he has not replied to the last message by the authors and has not reacted to the last revision of the GAAO draft (-09).

4. For protocol documents, are there existing implementations of the contents of
the document? Have a significant number of potential implementers indicated
plans to implement? Are any existing implementations reported somewhere,
either in the document itself (as RFC 7942 recommends) or elsewhere
(where)?

From the authors’ side, this document should be implemented to support PASA (draft-ietf-6lo-path-aware-semantic-addressing).
For the latter, authors (of PASA) expressed that an implementation is underway, and some of their
partners are interested in the datacenter networks monitoring use case, but there are not deployments yet.


Additional Reviews

5. Do the contents of this document closely interact with technologies in other
IETF working groups or external organizations, and would it therefore benefit
from their review? Have those reviews occurred? If yes, describe which
reviews took place.

6man is the most relevant related WG, as the draft defines an extension to IPv6 ND for LLNs.
The WGLC included the 6man WG in CC', triggering the feedback from Lorenzo Colitti described in the response to Question 2.

There were also two Early reviews carried out (on version -03 of the document): one from the INTDIR, carried out by Brian Haberman,
and another one from the GENART, carried out by Joel Halpern. The authors addressed the comments received, and these reviewers
expressed that they were satisfied with the related document updates.

6. Describe how the document meets any required formal expert review criteria,
such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.

Not applicable.

7. If the document contains a YANG module, has the final version of the module
been checked with any of the recommended validation tools for syntax and
formatting validation? If there are any resulting errors or warnings, what is
the justification for not fixing them at this time? Does the YANG module
comply with the Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA) as specified
in RFC 8342?

Not applicable.

8. Describe reviews and automated checks performed to validate sections of the
final version of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code,
BNF rules, MIB definitions, CBOR's CDDL, etc.

Not applicable.


Document Shepherd Checks

9. Based on the shepherd's review of the document, is it their opinion that this
document is needed, clearly written, complete, correctly designed, and ready
to be handed off to the responsible Area Director?

This document (version -07) was reviewed by the shepherd. The review did not encounter major issues. Most of the shepherd's comments were editorial. The few shepherd's technical comments were of minor nature, although they were needed for clarity and completeness of the specification. As a result, the authors updated the draft, addressing the shepherd's comments, leading to revision -08 of the draft. Subsequently, Lorenzo Colitti's concerns mentioned above (regarding why not use DHCPv6 instead), prompted another draft update (-09). In the shepherd's opinion, the concerns are addressed, and the document is now ready to be forwarded to the IESG.

10. Several IETF Areas have assembled lists of common issues that their
reviewers encounter. For which areas have such issues been identified
and addressed? For which does this still need to happen in subsequent
reviews?

This specification belongs to the Internet Area. It mainly enables a node to request to be assigned an IPv6 address or a prefix from neighboring routers. Address or prefix assignment can be carried out algorithmically. No particular issues have been identified, from the Internet Area or other areas.

11. What type of RFC publication is being requested on the IETF stream (Best
Current Practice, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard,
Informational, Experimental or Historic)? Why is this the proper type
of RFC? Do all Datatracker state attributes correctly reflect this intent?

The intended status of the document is 'Standards Track'. This intended status is indicated in the document header. This is the proper type of RFC for the document, since it defines a new IPv6 Neighbor Discovery (ND) Option called Generic Address Assignment Option (GAAO), which allows a node to issue an address/prefix request to neighboring routers. GAAO complements the existing suite of ND optimizations for 6LoWPAN/6lo.

12. Have reasonable efforts been made to remind all authors of the intellectual
property rights (IPR) disclosure obligations described in BCP 79? To
the best of your knowledge, have all required disclosures been filed? If
not, explain why. If yes, summarize any relevant discussion, including links
to publicly-available messages when applicable.

Each author has confirmed that they are not aware of IPR that would read on this document, as shown in the responses to the message linked below:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/6lo/bwkjMdGH3zxsK7u8APzEt6O476Q

13. Has each author, editor, and contributor shown their willingness to be
listed as such? If the total number of authors and editors on the front page
is greater than five, please provide a justification.

Yes, each author has shown their willingness to be listed as such. In the latest version of the draft, there are three authors. There are no contributors or editors.

14. Document any remaining I-D nits in this document. Simply running the idnits
tool is not enough; please review the "Content Guidelines" on
authors.ietf.org. (Also note that the current idnits tool generates
some incorrect warnings; a rewrite is underway.)

No issues found after using the ID nits tool (https://author-tools.ietf.org/idnits).
The document follows the content guidelines pointed to by the above link.
(see https://authors.ietf.org/recommended-content)
Regarding a possible implementation status section, such a section is probably not worth in this document, since the authors explain that there is no currently available implementation. 

15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the IESG
Statement on Normative and Informative References.

References are correctly classified into normative or informative.

16. List any normative references that are not freely available to anyone. Did
the community have sufficient access to review any such normative
references?

All normative references are freely available to everyone.

17. Are there any normative downward references (see RFC 3967 and BCP
97) that are not already listed in the DOWNREF registry? If so,
list them.

No.

18. Are there normative references to documents that are not ready to be
submitted to the IESG for publication or are otherwise in an unclear state?
If so, what is the plan for their completion?

No.

19. Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? If
so, does the Datatracker metadata correctly reflect this and are those RFCs
listed on the title page, in the abstract, and discussed in the
introduction? If not, explain why and point to the part of the document
where the relationship of this document to these other RFCs is discussed.

No. This document will not change the status of any existing RFCs.

20. 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 aspects of the document requiring IANA assignments are
associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm
that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm
that each newly created IANA registry specifies its initial contents,
allocations procedures, and a reasonable name (see RFC 8126).

This document contains 4 IANA requests:
- To make an addition to the "IPv6 Neighbor Discovery Option Formats" registry (under the registry group "Internet Control Message Protocol version 6 (ICMPv6) Parameters").
- To make an addition to the "6LoWPAN Capability Bits" registry (under the registry group "Internet Control Message Protocol version 6 (ICMPv6) Parameters").
- To make an addition to the "Address Registration Option Status Values" registry (under the registry group "Internet Control Message Protocol version 6 (ICMPv6) Parameters").
- To create a new registry group named "Generic Address Assignment Option".

These requests are consistent with the body of the document, and the ones that request additions to existing IANA registries clearly identify the appropriate IANA registries.

Following RFC 8126, the requested new registry specifies its initial contents and allocation procedures, and it has a reasonable name.

21. List any new IANA registries that require Designated Expert Review for
future allocations. Are the instructions to the Designated Expert clear?
Please include suggestions of designated experts, if appropriate.

The new IANA registry requested by this document states that values from that registry can be assigned by IANA on a "First Come, First Served" basis
according to RFC 8126. Therefore, "Expert Review" is not requested.

Document History

1. Does the working group (WG) consensus represent the strong concurrence of a
few individuals, with others being silent, or did it reach broad agreement?

The working group reached broad agreement.

2. Was there controversy about particular points, or were there decisions where
the consensus was particularly rough?

In IETF 121 (Dublin), some 6man participants expressed concerns about why not use DHCPv6 instead of the mechanism defined in this document (GAAO).
Subsequently, the authors published version -02 of the draft, providing new text with motivation about issues of DCHPv6 in LLNs (asynchronous multicast, nodes always listening by default, network-wide multicast/broadcast at L2, etc.). During the WGLC, where the 6man mailing list was CC'ed, one 6man participant (Lorenzo Colitti) still expressed similar concerns about why not use DHCPv6 instead of GAAO. Subsequently, the authors replied to Lorenzo on the mailing lists (both 6lo and 6man), and published revision -09 of the draft, which is the latest version of the draft as of the writing. This last revision underwent a major rework in order to make more explicit statements about DHCPv6 issues in LLNs.

3. 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.)

No. As of today, Lorenzo Colitti has expressed concerns, but he has not threatened an appeal and, in the shepherd's opinion, he has not expressed extreme discontent. To the knowledge of this shepherd, he has not replied to the last message by the authors and has not reacted to the last revision of the GAAO draft (-09).

4. For protocol documents, are there existing implementations of the contents of
the document? Have a significant number of potential implementers indicated
plans to implement? Are any existing implementations reported somewhere,
either in the document itself (as RFC 7942 recommends) or elsewhere
(where)?

From the authors’ side, this document should be implemented to support PASA (draft-ietf-6lo-path-aware-semantic-addressing).
For the latter, authors (of PASA) expressed that an implementation is underway, and some of their
partners are interested in the datacenter networks monitoring use case, but there are not deployments yet.


Additional Reviews

5. Do the contents of this document closely interact with technologies in other
IETF working groups or external organizations, and would it therefore benefit
from their review? Have those reviews occurred? If yes, describe which
reviews took place.

6man is the most relevant related WG, as the draft defines an extension to IPv6 ND for LLNs.
The WGLC included the 6man WG in CC', triggering the feedback from Lorenzo Colitti described in the response to Question 2.

There were also two Early reviews carried out (on version -03 of the document): one from the INTDIR, carried out by Brian Haberman,
and another one from the GENART, carried out by Joel Halpern. The authors addressed the comments received, and these reviewers
expressed that they were satisfied with the related document updates.

6. Describe how the document meets any required formal expert review criteria,
such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.

Not applicable.

7. If the document contains a YANG module, has the final version of the module
been checked with any of the recommended validation tools for syntax and
formatting validation? If there are any resulting errors or warnings, what is
the justification for not fixing them at this time? Does the YANG module
comply with the Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA) as specified
in RFC 8342?

Not applicable.

8. Describe reviews and automated checks performed to validate sections of the
final version of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code,
BNF rules, MIB definitions, CBOR's CDDL, etc.

Not applicable.


Document Shepherd Checks

9. Based on the shepherd's review of the document, is it their opinion that this
document is needed, clearly written, complete, correctly designed, and ready
to be handed off to the responsible Area Director?

This document (version -07) was reviewed by the shepherd. The review did not encounter major issues. Most of the shepherd's comments were editorial. The few shepherd's technical comments were of minor nature, although they were needed for clarity and completeness of the specification. As a result, the authors updated the draft, addressing the shepherd's comments, leading to revision -08 of the draft. Subsequently, Lorenzo Colitti's concerns mentioned above (regarding why not use DHCPv6 instead), prompted another draft update (-09). In the shepherd's opinion, the concerns are addressed, and the document is now ready to be forwarded to the IESG.

10. Several IETF Areas have assembled lists of common issues that their
reviewers encounter. For which areas have such issues been identified
and addressed? For which does this still need to happen in subsequent
reviews?

This specification belongs to the Internet Area. It mainly enables a node to request to be assigned an IPv6 address or a prefix from neighboring routers. Address or prefix assignment can be carried out algorithmically. No particular issues have been identified, from the Internet Area or other areas.

11. What type of RFC publication is being requested on the IETF stream (Best
Current Practice, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard,
Informational, Experimental or Historic)? Why is this the proper type
of RFC? Do all Datatracker state attributes correctly reflect this intent?

The intended status of the document is 'Standards Track'. This intended status is indicated in the document header. This is the proper type of RFC for the document, since it defines a new IPv6 Neighbor Discovery (ND) Option called Generic Address Assignment Option (GAAO), which allows a node to issue an address/prefix request to neighboring routers. GAAO complements the existing suite of ND optimizations for 6LoWPAN/6lo.

12. Have reasonable efforts been made to remind all authors of the intellectual
property rights (IPR) disclosure obligations described in BCP 79? To
the best of your knowledge, have all required disclosures been filed? If
not, explain why. If yes, summarize any relevant discussion, including links
to publicly-available messages when applicable.

Each author has confirmed that they are not aware of IPR that would read on this document, as shown in the responses to the message linked below:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/6lo/bwkjMdGH3zxsK7u8APzEt6O476Q

13. Has each author, editor, and contributor shown their willingness to be
listed as such? If the total number of authors and editors on the front page
is greater than five, please provide a justification.

Yes, each author has shown their willingness to be listed as such. In the latest version of the draft, there are three authors. There are no contributors or editors.

14. Document any remaining I-D nits in this document. Simply running the idnits
tool is not enough; please review the "Content Guidelines" on
authors.ietf.org. (Also note that the current idnits tool generates
some incorrect warnings; a rewrite is underway.)

No issues found after using the ID nits tool (https://author-tools.ietf.org/idnits).
The document follows the content guidelines pointed to by the above link.
(see https://authors.ietf.org/recommended-content)
Regarding a possible implementation status section, such a section is probably not worth in this document, since the authors explain that there is no currently available implementation. 

15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the IESG
Statement on Normative and Informative References.

References are correctly classified into normative or informative.

16. List any normative references that are not freely available to anyone. Did
the community have sufficient access to review any such normative
references?

All normative references are freely available to everyone.

17. Are there any normative downward references (see RFC 3967 and BCP
97) that are not already listed in the DOWNREF registry? If so,
list them.

No.

18. Are there normative references to documents that are not ready to be
submitted to the IESG for publication or are otherwise in an unclear state?
If so, what is the plan for their completion?

No.

19. Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? If
so, does the Datatracker metadata correctly reflect this and are those RFCs
listed on the title page, in the abstract, and discussed in the
introduction? If not, explain why and point to the part of the document
where the relationship of this document to these other RFCs is discussed.

No. This document will not change the status of any existing RFCs.

20. 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 aspects of the document requiring IANA assignments are
associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm
that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm
that each newly created IANA registry specifies its initial contents,
allocations procedures, and a reasonable name (see RFC 8126).

This document contains 4 IANA requests:
- To make an addition to the "IPv6 Neighbor Discovery Option Formats" registry (under the registry group "Internet Control Message Protocol version 6 (ICMPv6) Parameters").
- To make an addition to the "6LoWPAN Capability Bits" registry (under the registry group "Internet Control Message Protocol version 6 (ICMPv6) Parameters").
- To make an addition to the "Address Registration Option Status Values" registry (under the registry group "Internet Control Message Protocol version 6 (ICMPv6) Parameters").
- To create a new registry group named "Generic Address Assignment Option".

These requests are consistent with the body of the document, and the ones that request additions to existing IANA registries clearly identify the appropriate IANA registries.

Following RFC 8126, the requested new registry specifies its initial contents and allocation procedures, and it has a reasonable name.

21. List any new IANA registries that require Designated Expert Review for
future allocations. Are the instructions to the Designated Expert clear?
Please include suggestions of designated experts, if appropriate.

The new IANA registry requested by this document states that values from that registry can be assigned by IANA on a "First Come, First Served" basis
according to RFC 8126. Therefore, "Expert Review" is not requested.