IANA Allocation Guidelines for the IPv6 Routing Header
draft-ietf-6man-iana-routing-header-00
Revision differences
Document history
Date | Rev. | By | Action |
---|---|---|---|
2010-04-07
|
00 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to RFC-Ed-Ack from Waiting on RFC Editor |
2010-04-06
|
00 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to Waiting on RFC Editor from In Progress |
2010-04-06
|
00 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to In Progress from Waiting on Authors |
2010-03-30
|
00 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to Waiting on Authors from In Progress |
2010-03-30
|
00 | Amy Vezza | State Changes to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent by Amy Vezza |
2010-03-29
|
00 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to In Progress |
2010-03-29
|
00 | Amy Vezza | IESG state changed to Approved-announcement sent |
2010-03-29
|
00 | Amy Vezza | IESG has approved the document |
2010-03-29
|
00 | Amy Vezza | Closed "Approve" ballot |
2010-01-22
|
00 | (System) | Removed from agenda for telechat - 2010-01-21 |
2010-01-21
|
00 | Cindy Morgan | State Changes to Approved-announcement to be sent::Point Raised - writeup needed from IESG Evaluation by Cindy Morgan |
2010-01-21
|
00 | Ross Callon | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Ross Callon |
2010-01-20
|
00 | Cullen Jennings | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Cullen Jennings |
2010-01-20
|
00 | Robert Sparks | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Robert Sparks |
2010-01-20
|
00 | Ron Bonica | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Ron Bonica |
2010-01-20
|
00 | Dan Romascanu | [Ballot comment] It is not clear to me what is the intent of the phrase in the SAecurity Considerations section that says: 'However, past experience … [Ballot comment] It is not clear to me what is the intent of the phrase in the SAecurity Considerations section that says: 'However, past experience shows that it is easy to design routing headers that have significant problems [RFC5095].' Is this some kind of warning? to whom? |
2010-01-20
|
00 | Dan Romascanu | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Dan Romascanu |
2010-01-20
|
00 | Jari Arkko | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Recuse, has been recorded by Jari Arkko |
2010-01-19
|
00 | Lisa Dusseault | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Lisa Dusseault |
2010-01-19
|
00 | Pasi Eronen | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Pasi Eronen |
2010-01-19
|
00 | Magnus Westerlund | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Magnus Westerlund |
2010-01-19
|
00 | Lars Eggert | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Lars Eggert |
2010-01-18
|
00 | Tim Polk | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Tim Polk |
2010-01-17
|
00 | Russ Housley | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Russ Housley |
2010-01-17
|
00 | Ralph Droms | State Changes to IESG Evaluation from Waiting for AD Go-Ahead by Ralph Droms |
2010-01-16
|
00 | Alexey Melnikov | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Alexey Melnikov |
2010-01-12
|
00 | Adrian Farrel | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded by Adrian Farrel |
2010-01-12
|
00 | (System) | State has been changed to Waiting for AD Go-Ahead from In Last Call by system |
2010-01-04
|
00 | Amanda Baber | IANA comments: Upon approval of this document, IANA will make the following changes in the "Routing Types" registry at http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv6-parameters OLD: Reference: [RFC2460] … IANA comments: Upon approval of this document, IANA will make the following changes in the "Routing Types" registry at http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv6-parameters OLD: Reference: [RFC2460] Registration Procedures: (draft-arkko-ipv6-iana-routing-header will define the registration procedures) NEW: Reference: [RFC2460][RFC-6man-iana-routing-header-00] Registration Procedures: IETF Review or IESG Approval We understand the above to be the only IANA Actions for this document. |
2010-01-03
|
00 | Ralph Droms | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Ralph Droms |
2010-01-03
|
00 | Ralph Droms | Ballot has been issued by Ralph Droms |
2010-01-03
|
00 | Ralph Droms | Created "Approve" ballot |
2010-01-03
|
00 | Ralph Droms | Intended Status has been changed to Proposed Standard from None |
2009-12-22
|
00 | Amy Vezza | Last call sent |
2009-12-22
|
00 | Amy Vezza | State Changes to In Last Call from Last Call Requested by Amy Vezza |
2009-12-22
|
00 | Ralph Droms | Last Call was requested by Ralph Droms |
2009-12-22
|
00 | Ralph Droms | Placed on agenda for telechat - 2010-01-21 by Ralph Droms |
2009-12-22
|
00 | Ralph Droms | State Changes to Last Call Requested from AD Evaluation by Ralph Droms |
2009-12-22
|
00 | (System) | Ballot writeup text was added |
2009-12-22
|
00 | (System) | Last call text was added |
2009-12-22
|
00 | (System) | Ballot approval text was added |
2009-12-22
|
00 | Ralph Droms | [Note]: 'Bob Hinden (bob.hinden@gmail.com) is the document shepherd.' added by Ralph Droms |
2009-12-22
|
00 | Ralph Droms | State Changes to AD Evaluation from Publication Requested by Ralph Droms |
2009-12-22
|
00 | Ralph Droms | Note field has been cleared by Ralph Droms |
2009-12-22
|
00 | Ralph Droms | Advancement Questionnaire for (1.a) Who is the Document Shepherd for this document? Has the Document Shepherd personally reviewed this version of the … Advancement Questionnaire for (1.a) Who is the Document Shepherd for this document? Has the Document Shepherd personally reviewed this version of the document and, in particular, does he or she believe this version is ready for forwarding to the IESG for publication? Bob Hinden. I think the document is ready for publication. (1.b) Has the document had adequate review both from key WG members and from key non-WG members? Does the Document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed? This document has received adequete review and the shepherd does not have any concerns with those reviews. (1.c) Does the Document Shepherd have concerns that the document needs more review from a particular or broader perspective, e.g., security, operational complexity, someone familiar with AAA, internationalization or XML? No. (1.d) Does the Document Shepherd have any specific concerns or issues 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. Has an IPR disclosure related to this document been filed? If so, please include a reference to the disclosure and summarize the WG discussion and conclusion on this issue. No concerns. (1.e) 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? The 6man working group understands and supports this document. (1.f) 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 entered into the ID Tracker.) No. (1.g) Has the Document Shepherd personally verified that the document satisfies all ID nits? (See the Internet-Drafts Checklist and http://tools.ietf.org/tools/idnits/). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be thorough. Has the document met all formal review criteria it needs to, such as the MIB Doctor, media type and URI type reviews? Yes, passes ID nits and does not need any further formal review. (1.h) Has the document split its references into normative and informative? Yes 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 strategy for their completion? No. Are there normative references that are downward references, as described in [RFC3967]? If so, list these downward references to support the Area Director in the Last Call procedure for them [RFC3967]. No. (1.i) Has the Document Shepherd verified that the document IANA consideration section exists and is consistent with the body of the document? If the document specifies protocol extensions, are reservations requested in appropriate IANA registries? Are the IANA registries clearly identified? If the document creates a new registry, does it define the proposed initial contents of the registry and an allocation procedure for future registrations? Does it suggest a reasonable name for the new registry? See [RFC5226]. If the document describes an Expert Review process has Shepherd conferred with the Responsible Area Director so that the IESG can appoint the needed Expert during the IESG Evaluation? Yes, no issues. This document specifies the IANA guidelines [RFC5226] for allocating new values for the Routing Type field in the IPv6 Routing Header [RFC2460]. Previously, no IANA guidance existed for such allocations. (1.j) Has the Document Shepherd verified that sections of the document that are written in a formal language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc., validate correctly in an automated checker? N/A (1.k) 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. This document specifies the IANA guidelines [RFC5226] for allocating new values for the Routing Type field in the IPv6 Routing Header [RFC2460]. Previously, no IANA guidance existed for such allocations. 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? There were no w.g. issues. 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, 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? The document is focused on specifying IANA guidelines for allocation new types of routing headers. No more, no less. This document has been reviewed by key members of the 6MAN working group and the chairs. |
2009-12-21
|
00 | Jari Arkko | Draft Added by Jari Arkko in state Publication Requested |
2009-10-12
|
00 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-6man-iana-routing-header-00.txt |