Recommendation on Stable IPv6 Interface Identifiers
(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
This is appropriate as this document updates other standards track
RFCs. Standards Track is indicated on the title page header.
(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:
This document changes the recommended default Interface Identifier
(IID) generation scheme for cases where Stateless Address
Autoconfiguration (SLAAC) is used to generate a stable IPv6 address.
It recommends using the mechanism specified in RFC7217 in such cases,
and recommends against embedding stable link-layer addresses in IPv6
Interface Identifiers. It formally updates RFC2464, RFC2467, RFC2470,
RFC2491, RFC2492, RFC2497, RFC2590, RFC3146, RFC3572, RFC4291,
RFC4338, RFC4391, RFC5072, and RFC5121. This document does not change
any existing recommendations concerning the use of temporary addresses
as specified in RFC 4941.
Working Group Summary:
There is strong support for this document in the 6MAN working group.
The area where there was controversy was about what the updates to the
documents that define how IIDs should be created, e.g., RFC2464) for
specific link types. The current draft represents the working group
thinking and there is a strong consensus.
The quality of the document is good, it has received a lot of
review in the working group on the mailing list and at several 6man
sessions at IETF meetings. The number of drafts that have been
produced (15) is one sign of this.
There are implementations of the recommendation that nodes should not
employ IPv6 address generation schemes that embed a stable link-layer
address in the IID. This includes recent versions of Windows, iOS, and
Who is the Document Shepherd? Who is the Responsible Area Director?
Document Shepherd: Robert Hinden
Responsible AD: Suresh Krishnan
(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
The document Shepard has followed the process in the working group,
done several reviews and provided comments to the authors and w.g. I
believe it is ready for publication.
(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
(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
No specific 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?
Yes, all of the authors have confirmed that there is no IPR and full
conformance with BCP78 and BCP79.
(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If
so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR
No IPR disclosures have been filed.
(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?
There is a strong consensus around this document. There has been very
active discussion on the mailing list and at 6man face to face sessions.
(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.)
No appeals have been threatened, nor is there any extreme discontent.
(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
No serious ID nits. The ID nits tool flags some updated RFCs not being
cited correctly, but it looks to be bug in the ID nits tool because
this document updates many RFCs. Also, one line too long and a missing
form feed, not serious.
(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria,
such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.
(13) Have all references within this document been identified as either
normative or informative?
The document has a separate Normative and Information reference
section. References are characterized correctly.
(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?
(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 WG
considers it unnecessary.
This document will not change the status of any other RFCs.
(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).
There are no IANA registries within this document.
(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.
(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.