Document Shepherd writeup for:
Title: Gratuitous Neighbor Discovery: Creating Neighbor Cache Entries on
First-
Hop Routers
Author: Jen Linkova
Filename: draft-ietf-6man-grand
(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?
Standards Track, Proposed Standard
This is the correct status, because it is updating RFC4861
"Neighbor Discovery for IP version 6 (IPv6)".
(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:
Relevant content can frequently be found in the abstract and/or
introduction of the document. If not, this may be an indication that
there are deficiencies in the abstract or introduction.
Neighbor Discovery (RFC4861) is used by IPv6 nodes to determine the
link-layer addresses of neighboring nodes as well as to discover and
maintain reachability information. This document updates RFC4861 to
allow routers to proactively create a Neighbor Cache entry when a new
IPv6 address is assigned to a node. It also updates RFC4861 and
recommends nodes to send unsolicited Neighbor Advertisements upon
assigning a new IPv6 address. The proposed change will minimize the
delay and packet loss when a node initiate connections to off-link
destination from a new IPv6 address.
Working Group Summary:
Was there anything in WG process that is worth noting? For example, was
there controversy about particular points or were there decisions where
the consensus was particularly rough?
The document had active discussion in the w.g. and there is a strong
consensus to advance it.
The discussion spawned a side discussion about security and Neighbor
Discovery, but that is not related to this document, nor should it hold it
up.
Update: After submitting to the IESG, the Area Directors requested
that this draft be combined with <draft-ietf-v6ops-nd-cache-init>.
This version of the draft does that. We did a second working group
call, V6OPS was cc'ed on the last call.
Document Quality:
Are there existing implementations of the protocol? Have a significant
number of vendors indicated their plan to implement the specification?
Are there any reviewers that merit special mention as having done a
thorough review, e.g., one that resulted in important changes or a
conclusion that the document had no substantive issues? If there was a
MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, Media Type or other expert review, what was its
course (briefly)? In the case of a Media Type review, on what date was
the request posted?
It was well reviewed by the w.g., and has gone through two w.g. last
calls as noted above.
The document is very clear on what changes it is making to RFC4861,
show old text and new text.
Personnel:
Who is the Document Shepherd? Who is the Responsible Area Director?
Bob Hinden is Document Shepherd.
Erik Kline is Responsible Area Director.
(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, as Document Shepard and w.g. co-chair, have reviewed the document
and w.g. discussion.
I think 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?
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 had a lot of discussion. No concerns with advancing it.
(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?
The author is not aware of any IPR on this other than what was filed
against the individual version of the draft. See:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/search/?id=draft-linkova-6man-grand&submit=draft
(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If
so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR
disclosures.
See (7).
There was a short discussion about this on the list, no objection
advancing the document was raised.
(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 support, lots of comments, they were responded to quickly by
the author and resolved.
(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.
(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 IDnits errors.
(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria,
such as the MIB Doctor, YANG 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?
All normative references are published RFCs.
(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.
No.
(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 updated RFC4861, this is shown in the title page header,
Abstract, and Introduction.
(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 8126).
No IANA requests.
(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, YANG modules,
etc.
N/A
(20) If the document contains a YANG module, has the module been checked
with any of the recommended validation tools
(https://trac.ietf.org/trac/ops/wiki/yang-review-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 RFC8342?
N/A