Skip to main content

IANA Considerations for IPv6 Neighbor Discovery Prefix Information Option Flags
draft-ietf-6man-ndpioiana-04

Revision differences

Document history

Date Rev. By Action
2018-07-30
04 (System) RFC Editor state changed to AUTH48-DONE from AUTH48
2018-07-15
04 (System) RFC Editor state changed to AUTH48 from RFC-EDITOR
2018-06-27
04 (System) RFC Editor state changed to RFC-EDITOR from EDIT
2018-05-24
04 (System) IANA Action state changed to RFC-Ed-Ack from Waiting on RFC Editor
2018-05-24
04 (System) IANA Action state changed to Waiting on RFC Editor from Waiting on Authors
2018-05-24
04 (System) IANA Action state changed to Waiting on Authors from In Progress
2018-05-23
04 (System) IANA Action state changed to In Progress from Waiting on Authors
2018-05-22
04 (System) IANA Action state changed to Waiting on Authors from In Progress
2018-05-21
04 (System) RFC Editor state changed to EDIT
2018-05-21
04 (System) IESG state changed to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent
2018-05-21
04 (System) Announcement was received by RFC Editor
2018-05-21
04 (System) IANA Action state changed to In Progress
2018-05-21
04 Amy Vezza IESG state changed to Approved-announcement sent from Approved-announcement to be sent
2018-05-21
04 Amy Vezza IESG has approved the document
2018-05-21
04 Amy Vezza Closed "Approve" ballot
2018-05-21
04 Amy Vezza Ballot approval text was generated
2018-05-21
04 Suresh Krishnan IESG state changed to Approved-announcement to be sent from Approved-announcement to be sent::AD Followup
2018-05-01
04 Ole Trøan New version available: draft-ietf-6man-ndpioiana-04.txt
2018-05-01
04 (System) New version approved
2018-05-01
04 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Ole Troan
2018-05-01
04 Ole Trøan Uploaded new revision
2018-04-30
03 (System) Sub state has been changed to AD Followup from Revised ID Needed
2018-04-30
03 Ole Trøan New version available: draft-ietf-6man-ndpioiana-03.txt
2018-04-30
03 (System) New version approved
2018-04-30
03 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Ole Troan
2018-04-30
03 Ole Trøan Uploaded new revision
2018-04-05
02 Cindy Morgan IESG state changed to Approved-announcement to be sent::Revised I-D Needed from IESG Evaluation
2018-04-05
02 Martin Vigoureux [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Martin Vigoureux
2018-04-04
02 Terry Manderson [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Terry Manderson
2018-04-03
02 Adam Roach [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Adam Roach
2018-04-03
02 Ben Campbell [Ballot Position Update] Position for Ben Campbell has been changed to No Objection from No Record
2018-04-03
02 Ben Campbell [Ballot comment]
Shouldn't this also update RFC 6275?

Abstract: " ... is to request that IANA to create ..." : Too many "to"s.
2018-04-03
02 Ben Campbell Ballot comment text updated for Ben Campbell
2018-04-03
02 Deborah Brungard [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Deborah Brungard
2018-04-03
02 Ignas Bagdonas [Ballot comment]
Ole's last name in text version seems to be incorrect, this is likely a UTF-8 conversion problem.
2018-04-03
02 Ignas Bagdonas Ballot comment text updated for Ignas Bagdonas
2018-04-03
02 Ignas Bagdonas [Ballot comment]
Ole's last name in text version seems to be incorrect, this is likely UTF-8 conversion problem.
2018-04-03
02 Ignas Bagdonas [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Ignas Bagdonas
2018-04-03
02 Alissa Cooper
[Ballot comment]
I agree with the Gen-ART reviewer that RFC 6275 should be a normative reference. I don't think this document needs to update RFC …
[Ballot comment]
I agree with the Gen-ART reviewer that RFC 6275 should be a normative reference. I don't think this document needs to update RFC 6275.
2018-04-03
02 Alissa Cooper [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Alissa Cooper
2018-04-03
02 Mirja Kühlewind
[Ballot comment]
Was also wondering if this doc should also update RFC 6275. However, I didn't look at RFC 6275, so this is …
[Ballot comment]
Was also wondering if this doc should also update RFC 6275. However, I didn't look at RFC 6275, so this is a question for the authors and responsible AD to decide.
2018-04-03
02 Mirja Kühlewind [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Mirja Kühlewind
2018-04-03
02 Alexey Melnikov [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Alexey Melnikov
2018-04-03
02 Benjamin Kaduk
[Ballot comment]
It would be good to see a response to the directorate reviews.
Personally, I would lean towards also updating 6275, but defer to …
[Ballot comment]
It would be good to see a response to the directorate reviews.
Personally, I would lean towards also updating 6275, but defer to the responsible AD.
2018-04-03
02 Benjamin Kaduk [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Benjamin Kaduk
2018-04-03
02 Alvaro Retana [Ballot comment]
For completeness, a reference to rfc8126 would be nice.
2018-04-03
02 Alvaro Retana [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Alvaro Retana
2018-04-02
02 Spencer Dawkins [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Spencer Dawkins
2018-04-02
02 Eric Rescorla [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Eric Rescorla
2018-04-02
02 Warren Kumari [Ballot comment]
This document wins the "Best doc on the telechat" award :-)
2018-04-02
02 Warren Kumari [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Warren Kumari
2018-04-01
02 Suresh Krishnan IESG state changed to IESG Evaluation from Waiting for Writeup
2018-04-01
02 Suresh Krishnan Ballot has been issued
2018-04-01
02 Suresh Krishnan [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Suresh Krishnan
2018-04-01
02 Suresh Krishnan Created "Approve" ballot
2018-04-01
02 Suresh Krishnan Ballot writeup was changed
2018-03-06
02 (System) IESG state changed to Waiting for Writeup from In Last Call
2018-03-01
02 (System) IANA Review state changed to IANA OK - Actions Needed from IANA - Review Needed
2018-03-01
02 Sabrina Tanamal
(Via drafts-lastcall@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

The IANA Services Operator has completed its review of draft-ietf-6man-ndpioiana-02. If any part of this review is inaccurate, please let …
(Via drafts-lastcall@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

The IANA Services Operator has completed its review of draft-ietf-6man-ndpioiana-02. If any part of this review is inaccurate, please let us know.

The IANA Services Operator understands that, upon approval of this document, there is a single action which we must complete.

A new registry is to be created called the IPv6 ND Prefix Information Option flag registry. The new registry is to be created on the Internet Control Message Protocol version 6 (ICMPv6) Parameters registry page located at:

https://www.iana.org/assignments/icmpv6-parameters/

The new registry will be managed via Standards Action as defined by RFC 8126.

There are initial registrations in the new registry as follows:

+---------------+---------------------------------+-----------+
| RA Option Bit | Description | Reference |
+---------------+---------------------------------+-----------+
| 0 | L - On-link Flag | [RFC4861] |
| 1 | A - Autonomous Address | [RFC4861] |
| | Configuration Flag | |
| 2 | R - Router Address Flag | [RFC6275] |
+---------------+---------------------------------+-----------+

The IANA Services Operator understands that this is the only action required to be completed upon approval of this document.

Note:  The actions requested in this document will not be completed until the document has been approved for publication as an RFC. This message is meant only to confirm the list of actions that will be performed.


Thank you,

Sabrina Tanamal
Senior IANA Services Specialist
2018-02-26
02 Dan Romascanu Request for Telechat review by GENART Completed: Almost Ready. Reviewer: Dan Romascanu. Sent review to list.
2018-02-22
02 Suresh Krishnan Telechat date has been changed to 2018-04-05 from 2018-03-08
2018-02-20
02 Amy Vezza IANA Review state changed to IANA - Review Needed
2018-02-20
02 Amy Vezza
The following Last Call announcement was sent out (ends 2018-03-06):

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC: ipv6@ietf.org, bob.hinden@gmail.com, Robert Hinden , draft-ietf-6man-ndpioiana@ietf.org, …
The following Last Call announcement was sent out (ends 2018-03-06):

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC: ipv6@ietf.org, bob.hinden@gmail.com, Robert Hinden , draft-ietf-6man-ndpioiana@ietf.org, suresh@kaloom.com, 6man-chairs@ietf.org
Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org
Sender:
Subject: Last Call:  (IPv6 ND PIO Flags IANA considerations) to Proposed Standard


The IESG has received a request from the IPv6 Maintenance WG (6man) to
consider the following document: - 'IPv6 ND PIO Flags IANA considerations'
  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 2018-03-06. 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


  The Prefix Information Option in the IPv6 Neighbor Discovery Router
  Advertisement defines an 8-bit flag field with two flags defined and
  the remaining 6 bits reserved (Reserved1).  RFC 6275 has defined a
  new flag from this field without creating a IANA registry or updating
  RFC 4861.  The purpose of this document is to request that IANA to
  create a new registry for the PIO flags to avoid potential conflict
  in the use of these flags.  This document updates RFC 4861.




The file can be obtained via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-6man-ndpioiana/

IESG discussion can be tracked via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-6man-ndpioiana/ballot/


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




2018-02-20
02 Amy Vezza IESG state changed to In Last Call from Last Call Requested
2018-02-20
02 Suresh Krishnan Last call was requested
2018-02-20
02 Suresh Krishnan Last call announcement was generated
2018-02-20
02 Suresh Krishnan Ballot approval text was generated
2018-02-20
02 Suresh Krishnan Ballot writeup was generated
2018-02-20
02 Suresh Krishnan IESG state changed to Last Call Requested from AD Evaluation
2018-02-15
02 Jean Mahoney Request for Telechat review by GENART is assigned to Dan Romascanu
2018-02-15
02 Jean Mahoney Request for Telechat review by GENART is assigned to Dan Romascanu
2018-02-14
02 Carlos Jesús Bernardos Request for Early review by INTDIR Completed: Ready. Reviewer: Carlos Bernardos. Sent review to list.
2018-02-09
02 Barry Leiba Request for Telechat review by SECDIR Completed: Ready. Reviewer: Barry Leiba. Sent review to list.
2018-02-08
02 Tero Kivinen Request for Telechat review by SECDIR is assigned to Barry Leiba
2018-02-08
02 Tero Kivinen Request for Telechat review by SECDIR is assigned to Barry Leiba
2018-02-05
02 Al Morton Request for Telechat review by OPSDIR Completed: Has Nits. Reviewer: Al Morton. Sent review to list.
2018-02-05
02 Gunter Van de Velde Request for Telechat review by OPSDIR is assigned to Al Morton
2018-02-05
02 Gunter Van de Velde Request for Telechat review by OPSDIR is assigned to Al Morton
2018-02-05
02 Suresh Krishnan Placed on agenda for telechat - 2018-03-08
2018-02-01
02 Bernie Volz Request for Early review by INTDIR is assigned to Carlos Bernardos
2018-02-01
02 Bernie Volz Request for Early review by INTDIR is assigned to Carlos Bernardos
2018-01-31
02 Suresh Krishnan Requested Early review by INTDIR
2018-01-29
02 Suresh Krishnan IESG state changed to AD Evaluation from Publication Requested
2018-01-10
02 Bob Hinden
Title          : IPv6 ND PIO Flags IANA considerations
Author          : Ole Trøan
Filename        : …
Title          : IPv6 ND PIO Flags IANA considerations
Author          : Ole Trøan
Filename        : draft-ietf-6man-ndpioiana-02.txt
Pages          : 3
Date            : 2018-01-10


(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

  This is appropriate as this document updates a standards track
  RFC.  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:

Technical Summary:

  The Prefix Information Option in the IPv6 Neighbor Discovery Router
  Advertisement defines an 8-bit flag field with two flags defined and
  the remaining 6 bits reserved (Reserved1).  RFC 6275 has defined a
  new flag from this field without creating a IANA registry or updating
  RFC 4861.  The purpose of this document is to request that IANA to
  create a new registry for the PIO flags to avoid potential conflict
  in the use of these flags.

Working Group Summary:

  There is support for this document in the 6MAN working group.  There
  is a consensus to advance this document.

Document Quality:

  The quality of the document is very good, it has received adequate
  review in the working group on the mailing list and at a 6man session
  at an IETF meeting.


Personnel:

Who is the Document Shepherd? Who is the Responsible Area Director?

  Document Shepherd:  Bob 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
IESG.

  The document Shepard has reviewed and commented on this draft, and
  followed the process in the working group, and thinks that the issues
  raised have been resolved in the current draft.


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

  No concerns.


(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, N/A


(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.

  No 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, the author has 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
disclosures.

  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 good consensus around this document.  No one is opposed to
  it's publication.


(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
thorough.

  No nits found.


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

  N/A

(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?

  No, all 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.

  N/A


(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.  It does
  update RFC4861, and this is noted in the header.


(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).

  This document requests that IANA create a new registry to document the
  IPv6 ND Prefix Information Option flags.  This registry is documenting
  existing IPv6 ND Prefix Information Option flags.  No new flags are
  being created.  It requires that any new flags are defined by
  standards actions.


(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.

  Expert review not necessary, due to the requirement of standards track
  actions.


(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.

  N/A

2018-01-10
02 Bob Hinden Responsible AD changed to Suresh Krishnan
2018-01-10
02 Bob Hinden IETF WG state changed to Submitted to IESG for Publication from WG Consensus: Waiting for Write-Up
2018-01-10
02 Bob Hinden IESG state changed to Publication Requested
2018-01-10
02 Bob Hinden IESG process started in state Publication Requested
2018-01-10
02 Bob Hinden Changed document writeup
2018-01-10
02 Ole Trøan New version available: draft-ietf-6man-ndpioiana-02.txt
2018-01-10
02 (System) New version approved
2018-01-10
02 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Ole Troan
2018-01-10
02 Ole Trøan Uploaded new revision
2018-01-10
01 Ole Trøan New version available: draft-ietf-6man-ndpioiana-01.txt
2018-01-10
01 (System) New version approved
2018-01-10
01 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Ole Troan
2018-01-10
01 Ole Trøan Uploaded new revision
2018-01-10
01 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Ole Troan
2018-01-10
01 Ole Trøan Uploaded new revision
2018-01-09
00 Bob Hinden IETF WG state changed to WG Consensus: Waiting for Write-Up from In WG Last Call
2018-01-09
00 Bob Hinden Changed consensus to Yes from Unknown
2018-01-09
00 Bob Hinden Intended Status changed to Proposed Standard from None
2018-01-09
00 Bob Hinden Notification list changed to Robert Hinden <bob.hinden@gmail.com>
2018-01-09
00 Bob Hinden Document shepherd changed to Robert M. Hinden
2017-12-14
00 Bob Hinden Working Group last call ends on 5 January 2018.
2017-12-14
00 Bob Hinden IETF WG state changed to In WG Last Call from WG Document
2017-12-06
00 Bob Hinden This document now replaces draft-troan-6man-ndpioiana instead of None
2017-12-06
00 Ole Trøan New version available: draft-ietf-6man-ndpioiana-00.txt
2017-12-06
00 (System) WG -00 approved
2017-12-06
00 Ole Trøan Set submitter to "Ole Trøan ", replaces to draft-troan-6man-ndpioiana and sent approval email to group chairs: 6man-chairs@ietf.org
2017-12-06
00 Ole Trøan Uploaded new revision