Enhanced Duplicate Address Detection
draft-ietf-6man-enhanced-dad-15

[Ballot comment]


I'm a bit confused here - you use a field from SEND, and
then say that that could be borked, so the mitigation is
that one might use SEND to protect that. Why not just use
SEND - can you explain?

[Ballot comment]
You should precise when using the RFC 2119 keywords
OLD:
  A Service Provider router, such as an access concentrator, or network
  core router, SHOULD support this mitigation strategy.

NEW:
  A Service Provider router, such as an access concentrator, or network
  core router, SHOULD support the DAD desactivation per interface

Same remark for "this solution" in
  This solution SHOULD be enabled by default, and MUST be a
  configurable option if the layer-2 technology provides means for
  detecting loopback messages on an interface circuit.

Please expand it.

[Ballot comment]
Thanks for your work on this draft.  The SecDir reviewer had a few comments that you should respond on and in terms of security, the statement in section 5 on trust should be clarified.

https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/secdir/current/msg05436.html

Section 5:
  Any other network that follows the same trust model MAY use the
  automated actions proposed in this section.
The problem is that as nearly as I can tell, there is only one such action in the section, the one in the immediately preceding sentence.

[Ballot comment]
Comment from Tim Chown's opsdir review:

Hi,

I have reviewed this document as part of the Operational directorate's
ongoing effort to review all IETF documents being processed by the IESG.  These
comments were written with the intent of improving the operational aspects of the
IETF drafts. Comments that are not addressed in last call may be included in AD reviews
during the IESG review.  Document editors and WG chairs should treat these comments
just like any other last call comments.

I believe this draft is on the IESG telechat agenda for tomorrow. There have been
a minor update from -13 to -14 in the last couple of days to clarify the RFCs that
the draft updates, which now seems resolved between the advice from the two
ADs in question.

My view is that the document is Ready.

Very minor nits:

The last sentence of section 1 is a little clumsy, and perhaps unnecessary:
"The Changes to RFC 4861 section includes an update to RFC 4861."

The first paragraph in the Problem Statement could be broken into two or three.

Tim

[Ballot comment]
I have No Objection to the publication of this document, but I should
have liked more clarify on how the three updated RFCs are updated.
Section 4.3 makes this very clear for 4861, but the updates to 4862
and 4429 are less clear.

How about a new section 1.3 called "Updates to existing RFCs" that can
summarise for all three RFCs and give a forward pointer to 4.3?

IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

IANA has reviewed draft-ietf-6man-enhanced-dad-12 which is currently in Last Call, and has the following comments:

We understand that, upon approval of this document, there are no IANA Actions that need completion.

While it is helpful for the IANA Considerations section of the document to remain in place upon publication, if the authors prefer to remove it, IANA doesn't object.

If this assessment is not accurate, please respond as soon as possible.

The following Last Call announcement was sent out:

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC:
Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org
Sender:
Subject: Last Call:  (Enhanced Duplicate Address Detection) to Proposed Standard


The IESG has received a request from the IPv6 Maintenance WG (6man) to
consider the following document:
- 'Enhanced Duplicate Address Detection'
  as Proposed 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 2015-02-03. 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


  IPv6 Loopback Suppression and Duplicate Address Detection (DAD) are
  discussed in Appendix A of RFC4862.  That specification mentions a
  hardware-assisted mechanism to detect looped back DAD messages.  If
  hardware cannot suppress looped back DAD messages, a software
  solution is required.  Several service provider communities have
  expressed a need for automated detection of looped back Neighbor
  Discovery (ND) messages used by DAD.  This document includes
  mitigation techniques and outlines the Enhanced DAD algorithm to
  automate the detection of looped back IPv6 ND messages used by DAD.
  For network loopback tests, the Enhanced DAD algorithm allows IPv6 to
  self-heal after a loopback is placed and removed.  Further, for
  certain access networks the document automates resolving a specific
  duplicate address conflict.  This document updates RFC4861, RFC4862,
  and RFC4429.




The file can be obtained via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-6man-enhanced-dad/

IESG discussion can be tracked via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-6man-enhanced-dad/ballot/


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

(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 document. This is the correct type because it
  updates standards documents with changes to the Duplicate Address
  Detection mechanism.  The type is indicated on the title page.

(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 document describes an extension to IPv6 Duplicate Address
  Detection that allows DAD to detect looped backed ND messages. This
  is done by including a Nonce option.

Working Group Summary

  The initial revision of this work was published in October
  2011. There is a clear consensus that this solves a real
  problem. The WGLC did not receive any comments, that seems to have
  reflected a general happiness with the state of the document,
  rather than a lack of interest.

Document Quality

  The 6man working group appoints reviewers for all documents being
  advanced to the IESG. This document has been reviewed in detail by
  Jouni Korhonen, Eric Vyncke and Jinmei Tatuya. In addition to the
  chair's and shepherd's review.  In addition, after the WGLC, the
  chairs requested the AD for a IntDir review prior to advancing the
  document to the IESG. The IntDir review resulted in clarifications
  and a new revision of the document.

Personnel

  Document Shepherd: Ole Troan
  Responsible Area Director: Brian Haberman

(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 has been reviewed by the 6man chairs, ID nits have been
  checked, as well as the appointed 6man reviewers.

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

  No.

(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.

  The document shepherd has no concerns as such. If one were to
  nitpick it would be the verbosity of the document; there is quite a
  lot of background text. For a 7 page document it probably doesn't
  matter much.


(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.

(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? 

  Strong consensus.

(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 appeal or discontent registered.

(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.

No nits.

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

  No formal reviews required.

(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.

  None.

(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.

  It will update RFC 4861, RFC4862 and RFC3971.

(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).

  I can confirm all points.

(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.

  None.

(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.

  There are no formal language in this document.