Skip to main content

Shepherd writeup

(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?

This memo is intended for publication as Proposed Standard. It must be
a PS document because a) it specifies "bits on the wire" and b) it
UPDATES another Standards Track document (RFC 2460). This is reflected
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:

  The IPv6 specification allows IPv6 header chains of an arbitrary
  size.  The specification also allows options which can in turn extend
  each of the headers.  In those scenarios in which the IPv6 header
  chain or options are unusually long and packets are fragmented, or
  scenarios in which the fragment size is very small, the first
  fragment of a packet may fail to include the entire IPv6 header
  chain.  This document discusses the interoperability and security
  problems of such traffic, and updates RFC 2460 such that the first
  fragment of a packet is required to contain the entire IPv6 header

Working Group Summary:

This document is the product of the IPv6 WG. It has undergone
significant revision over eight versions. The final version reflects
strong WG consensus.

Document Quality:

In the 6man working group, the chairs do a detailed review
and also ask one or two volunteers (or hand picked experts) to
do a thorough review of documents before the are being
advanced to the IESG.

Brian Carpenter performed a detailed review of the final version. Ran
Atkinson and others have reviewed recent versions.

Implementations: Several devices that implement stateless firewalls
already discard packets when the entire header chain is not included
in the first fragment.


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

Ole Troan is the document Shepherd. Brian Haberman is the 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.

Ole has reviewed the final version of this document and commented on
the final edits.

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


(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.


(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 includes the following text:

  Extension Header:

     Extension Headers are defined in Section 4 of [RFC2460].  As a
     result of [I-D.ietf-6man-ext-transmit], [IANA-PROTO] provides a
     list of assigned Internet Protocol Numbers and designates which of
     those protocol numbers also represent extension headers.

This statement is not currently correct, but will be correct when
draft-ietf-6man-ext-transmit is published. So, the two documents
should be progressed either together or with the current memo
following draft-ietf-6man-ext-transmit.

(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?


(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If
so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR


(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 strong WG consensus behind the document.

(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.)


(11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this
document. (See and the
Internet-Drafts Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this
check needs to be thorough.

There are 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.

The document has been reviewed by the 6man WG.

(13) Have all references within this document been identified as
either normative or informative?


(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?

There is a normative reference to draft-ietf-6man-ext-transmit, which
has been forwarded to the IESG

(15) Are there downward normative references (see RFC 3967)? If so,
list these downward references to support the Area Director in the
Last Call procedure.


(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.

Yes. This document updates RFC 2460. This is mentioned in the header,
abstract and body of the text.

(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

All confirmed. 

(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.


(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.