IPv6 Node Requirements
draft-ietf-6man-node-req-bis-11
Revision differences
Document history
Date | Rev. | By | Action |
---|---|---|---|
2012-08-22
|
11 | (System) | post-migration administrative database adjustment to the No Objection position for Sean Turner |
2012-08-22
|
11 | (System) | post-migration administrative database adjustment to the No Objection position for Peter Saint-Andre |
2011-09-02
|
11 | Amy Vezza | State changed to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent. |
2011-09-01
|
11 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to No IC from In Progress |
2011-09-01
|
11 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to In Progress |
2011-09-01
|
11 | Amy Vezza | IESG state changed to Approved-announcement sent |
2011-09-01
|
11 | Amy Vezza | IESG has approved the document |
2011-09-01
|
11 | Amy Vezza | Closed "Approve" ballot |
2011-09-01
|
11 | Amy Vezza | Approval announcement text regenerated |
2011-09-01
|
11 | Amy Vezza | Ballot writeup text changed |
2011-09-01
|
11 | Amy Vezza | State changed to Approved-announcement to be sent from IESG Evaluation::Revised ID Needed. |
2011-09-01
|
11 | Peter Saint-Andre | [Ballot Position Update] Position for Peter Saint-Andre has been changed to No Objection from Discuss |
2011-07-14
|
11 | Cindy Morgan | Removed from agenda for telechat |
2011-07-14
|
11 | Cindy Morgan | State changed to IESG Evaluation::Revised ID Needed from IESG Evaluation. |
2011-07-14
|
11 | Sean Turner | [Ballot comment] This is an updated comment (I moved my discuss here): #1) Consider adding DNSSEC to the title of 7.1. #2) There are quite … [Ballot comment] This is an updated comment (I moved my discuss here): #1) Consider adding DNSSEC to the title of 7.1. #2) There are quite a number of errata reported on the RFCs referenced in this draft: 2460, 4861, 4191, 3971, 1981, 2675, 4443, 4291, 4941, 3315, 5952. Resolving these would aid, some might say greatly aid, implementers. Is there any chance of getting a group of reviewers comprised of some subset of the august body of authors/contributors from 4294 and this document to address the errata? |
2011-07-14
|
11 | Sean Turner | [Ballot Position Update] Position for Sean Turner has been changed to No Objection from Discuss |
2011-07-14
|
11 | Jari Arkko | [Ballot Position Update] Position for Jari Arkko has been changed to Recuse from Yes |
2011-07-14
|
11 | Stephen Farrell | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded |
2011-07-14
|
11 | Adrian Farrel | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded |
2011-07-14
|
11 | Russ Housley | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded |
2011-07-14
|
11 | Stewart Bryant | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded |
2011-07-14
|
11 | Amy Vezza | State changed to IESG Evaluation from Waiting for AD Go-Ahead. |
2011-07-14
|
11 | Sean Turner | [Ballot comment] Consider adding DNSSEC to the title of 7.1. |
2011-07-14
|
11 | Sean Turner | [Ballot discuss] This is a DISCUSS-DISCUSS (i.e., nothing for the authors to do at this time). There are quite a number of errata reported on … [Ballot discuss] This is a DISCUSS-DISCUSS (i.e., nothing for the authors to do at this time). There are quite a number of errata reported on the RFCs referenced in this draft: 2460, 4861, 4191, 3971, 1981, 2675, 4443, 4291, 4941, 3315, 5952. Resolving these would aid, some might say greatly aid, implementers. Is there any chance of getting a group of reviewers comprised of some subset of the august body of authors/contributors from 4294 and this document to address the errata? |
2011-07-14
|
11 | Sean Turner | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded |
2011-07-13
|
11 | Gonzalo Camarillo | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded |
2011-07-13
|
11 | Ron Bonica | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded |
2011-07-13
|
11 | Pete Resnick | [Ballot comment] I agree with Peter's DISCUSS comment. |
2011-07-13
|
11 | Pete Resnick | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded |
2011-07-13
|
11 | (System) | State changed to Waiting for AD Go-Ahead from In Last Call. |
2011-07-12
|
11 | Peter Saint-Andre | [Ballot discuss] This document is full of normative keywords and says it is "intended to be an Applicability Statement". Per Section 3.2 of RFC 2026 … [Ballot discuss] This document is full of normative keywords and says it is "intended to be an Applicability Statement". Per Section 3.2 of RFC 2026, why is it not on the standards track? |
2011-07-12
|
11 | Peter Saint-Andre | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded |
2011-07-12
|
11 | Amanda Baber | We understand that this document doesn't require any IANA actions. |
2011-07-12
|
11 | Robert Sparks | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded |
2011-07-12
|
11 | Ralph Droms | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded |
2011-07-11
|
11 | Wesley Eddy | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded |
2011-07-06
|
11 | Wesley Eddy | Request for Last Call review by TSVDIR is assigned to Allison Mankin |
2011-07-06
|
11 | Wesley Eddy | Request for Last Call review by TSVDIR is assigned to Allison Mankin |
2011-07-01
|
11 | Ralph Droms | Placed on agenda for telechat - 2011-07-14 |
2011-06-30
|
11 | Samuel Weiler | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Uri Blumenthal |
2011-06-30
|
11 | Samuel Weiler | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Uri Blumenthal |
2011-06-29
|
11 | Amy Vezza | Last call sent |
2011-06-29
|
11 | Amy Vezza | State changed to In Last Call from Last Call Requested. The following Last Call Announcement was sent out: From: The IESG To: IETF-Announce CC: Reply-To: … State changed to In Last Call from Last Call Requested. The following Last Call Announcement was sent out: From: The IESG To: IETF-Announce CC: Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org Subject: Last Call: (IPv6 Node Requirements) to Informational RFC The IESG has received a request from the IPv6 Maintenance WG (6man) to consider the following document: - 'IPv6 Node Requirements' as an Informational RFC 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 2011-07-13. 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 This document defines requirements for IPv6 nodes. It is expected that IPv6 will be deployed in a wide range of devices and situations. Specifying the requirements for IPv6 nodes allows IPv6 to function well and interoperate in a large number of situations and deployments. This document obsoletes RFC4294. The file can be obtained via http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-6man-node-req-bis/ IESG discussion can be tracked via http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-6man-node-req-bis/ No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D. |
2011-06-29
|
11 | Ralph Droms | Last Call was requested |
2011-06-29
|
11 | Ralph Droms | State changed to Last Call Requested from AD Evaluation. |
2011-06-29
|
11 | Ralph Droms | Ballot writeup text changed |
2011-05-31
|
11 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-6man-node-req-bis-11.txt |
2011-05-27
|
11 | Amanda Baber | We understand that this document doesn't have any IANA actions. |
2011-05-25
|
11 | Amy Vezza | [Note]: changed to 'Bob Hinden (bob.hinden@gmail.com) is the document shepherd.' |
2011-05-25
|
11 | Amy Vezza | IPv6 Node Requirements RFC 4294-bis Author(s) : E. Jankiewicz, et al. Filename : draft-ietf-6man-node-req-bis-10.txt (1.a) Who is the Document Shepherd for this document? Has … IPv6 Node Requirements RFC 4294-bis Author(s) : E. Jankiewicz, et al. Filename : draft-ietf-6man-node-req-bis-10.txt (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 (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? Two last calls were performed as well as several solicited reviews on this document. I think the current draft resolves the issues raised during this process and I am comfortable with the quality of the 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. (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? I think there is a strong consensus behind 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. There are two warnings that are not significant. (1.h) Has the document split its references into normative and informative? 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? 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]. Has normative and informative references. All normative references are published RFCs. (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? No IANA requests. (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 This document defines requirements for IPv6 nodes. It is expected that IPv6 will be deployed in a wide range of devices and situations. Specifying the requirements for IPv6 nodes allows IPv6 to function well and interoperate in a large number of situations and deployments. This document obsoletes RFC4294. Working Group Summary The working group reviewed and discussed this document over a long period of time. Two working group last calls preformed as well as several individual reviews. The document has strong support in the working group. Document Quality The document has had extensive review and discussion in the working group. All of the requirements outlined in this document have been widely implemented. |
2011-05-25
|
11 | Jari Arkko | [Note]: 'Assigned to Ralph to make sure there is no conflict of interest. Jari is a member of the original doc's design team (in the … [Note]: 'Assigned to Ralph to make sure there is no conflict of interest. Jari is a member of the original doc's design team (in the previous RFC).' added |
2011-05-25
|
11 | Jari Arkko | Responsible AD has been changed to Ralph Droms from Jari Arkko |
2011-05-25
|
11 | Jari Arkko | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Jari Arkko |
2011-05-25
|
11 | Jari Arkko | Ballot has been issued |
2011-05-25
|
11 | Jari Arkko | Created "Approve" ballot |
2011-05-25
|
11 | (System) | Ballot writeup text was added |
2011-05-25
|
11 | (System) | Last call text was added |
2011-05-25
|
11 | (System) | Ballot approval text was added |
2011-05-25
|
11 | Jari Arkko | Intended Status has been changed to Informational from None |
2011-05-25
|
11 | Jari Arkko | State changed to AD Evaluation from Publication Requested. IPv6 Node Requirements RFC 4294-bis Author(s) : E. Jankiewicz, et al. Filename … State changed to AD Evaluation from Publication Requested. IPv6 Node Requirements RFC 4294-bis Author(s) : E. Jankiewicz, et al. Filename : draft-ietf-6man-node-req-bis-10.txt (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 (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? Two last calls were performed as well as several solicited reviews on this document. I think the current draft resolves the issues raised during this process and I am comfortable with the quality of the 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. (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? I think there is a strong consensus behind 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. There are two warnings that are not significant. (1.h) Has the document split its references into normative and informative? 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? 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]. Has normative and informative references. All normative references are published RFCs. (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? No IANA requests. (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 This document defines requirements for IPv6 nodes. It is expected that IPv6 will be deployed in a wide range of devices and situations. Specifying the requirements for IPv6 nodes allows IPv6 to function well and interoperate in a large number of situations and deployments. This document obsoletes RFC4294. Working Group Summary The working group reviewed and discussed this document over a long period of time. Two working group last calls preformed as well as several individual reviews. The document has strong support in the working group. Document Quality The document has had extensive review and discussion in the working group. All of the requirements outlined in this document have been widely implemented. |
2011-05-25
|
11 | Jari Arkko | Note field has been cleared |
2011-05-25
|
11 | Jari Arkko | Draft added in state Publication Requested |
2011-05-25
|
11 | Jari Arkko | [Note]: 'IPv6 Node Requirements RFC 4294-bis Author(s) : E. Jankiewicz, et al. Filename : draft-ietf-6man-node-req-bis-10.txt (1.a) Who is the … [Note]: 'IPv6 Node Requirements RFC 4294-bis Author(s) : E. Jankiewicz, et al. Filename : draft-ietf-6man-node-req-bis-10.txt (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 (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? Two last calls were performed as well as several solicited reviews on this document. I think the current draft resolves the issues raised during this process and I am comfortable with the quality of the 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. (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? I think there is a strong consensus behind 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. There are two warnings that are not significant. (1.h) Has the document split its references into normative and informative? 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? 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]. Has normative and informative references. All normative references are published RFCs. (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? No IANA requests. (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 This document defines requirements for IPv6 nodes. It is expected that IPv6 will be deployed in a wide range of devices and situations. Specifying the requirements for IPv6 nodes allows IPv6 to function well and interoperate in a large number of situations and deployments. This document obsoletes RFC4294. Working Group Summary The working group reviewed and discussed this document over a long period of time. Two working group last calls preformed as well as several individual reviews. The document has strong support in the working group. Document Quality The document has had extensive review and discussion in the working group. All of the requirements outlined in this document have been widely implemented. ' added |
2011-05-23
|
10 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-6man-node-req-bis-10.txt |
2011-04-26
|
09 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-6man-node-req-bis-09.txt |
2011-03-11
|
08 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-6man-node-req-bis-08.txt |
2010-12-16
|
07 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-6man-node-req-bis-07.txt |
2010-10-25
|
06 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-6man-node-req-bis-06.txt |
2010-07-12
|
05 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-6man-node-req-bis-05.txt |
2010-03-08
|
04 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-6man-node-req-bis-04.txt |
2010-01-14
|
11 | (System) | Document has expired |
2009-07-13
|
03 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-6man-node-req-bis-03.txt |
2008-11-03
|
02 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-6man-node-req-bis-02.txt |
2008-02-25
|
01 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-6man-node-req-bis-01.txt |
2008-02-11
|
00 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-6man-node-req-bis-00.txt |