RFC2460bis Writeup
Title : Internet Protocol, Version 6 (IPv6) Specification
Author : Stephen E. Deering
Robert M. Hinden
Filename : draft-ietf-6man-rfc2460bis-08.txt
Pages : 39
Date : 2016-11-15
(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?
Internet Standard
RFC2460 is currently at Draft Standard, the 6MAN working group has
reached a consensus that it’s time to elevate the IPv6 protocol
specification to Internet Standard.
The header indicates “Standards Track”.
(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:
This document specifies version 6 of the Internet Protocol (IPv6). It
obsoletes RFC2460
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 6MAN working started working on advancing the IPv6 core
specifications to Internet Standard at IETF93 July 2015. See:
https://www.ietf.org/proceedings/93/slides/slides-93-6man-3.pdf The
working group identified three RFCs to update (RFC2460, RFC4291, and
RFC1981) by incorporating updates from other RFCs and Errata, and
three to advance in place RFC4443, RFC3596, and RFC4941. After
further analysis, the w.g. decided to not reclassify RFC4941 at this
time.
The working followed the requirements in RFC6410 for advancing a Draft
Standard to Internet Standard. While RFC6410 describes how to handle
Errata, it doesn't say anything about Updated-By RFCs. The working
group, with the advice of our AD, incorporated the changes from the
the Updated-By RFC and verified there was interoperability of the
updates.
All of the Updated-By and errata were brought into the new draft in
small steps to allow thorough review of all of the changes. A summary
and link to diff from the previous version was sent to the mailing
list. All of the changes to each draft were also discussed in detail
at IETF94, IETF95, IETF96, and IETF97. All of the changes from
RFC2460 are summarized in Appendix B and are ordered by the Internet
Draft that brought the change in.
A working group last call for moving this and the other two documents
to Internet Standard was started on 30 May 2016. Reviews were also
requested. Issues found during the last call and reviews were entered
into the 6MAN ticket system. These are now closed.
The biggest issue raised was how to handle the issue of Extension
Header insertion in this document. After many discussion on the
mailing list and face to face meeting, there wasn’t a clear consensus.
The chairs conducted an online survey that provided three choices: Ban
header insertion, describe the problems with header insertion, or say
nothing. The result of the survey was to describe the solution. The
results and methodology used to evaluate the results can be seen at:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/_gG2foiugk5B7w3TpnPvBbjHDzs
This was discussed at the 6MAN session at IETF97 and on the mailing
list after the meeting. The chairs believe there is a consensus to go
forward with the text that is in draft-ietf-6man-rfc2460bis-08.
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?
IPv6 is implemented on most platforms (hosts, routers, servers, etc.),
including proprietary and open source. A list of products that have
received the IPV6 Ready logo can be found at:
https://www.ipv6ready.org/db/index.php/public/?o=4
Most major ISP now support IPv6, as well as many mobile
operators.
Google’s IPv6 stats at
https://www.google.com/intl/en/ipv6/statistics.html show they are
seeing now about 15% of their overall user traffic is IPv6. Country
adoption is 29% in the US, Germany 27%, Finland 12%, Japan 14%, Brazil
11%. IPv6 users per AS can be found at
http://stats.labs.apnic.net/aspop
The University of New Hampshire InterOperability Laboratory (UNH)
analyzed the incorporated updates to insure they were implemented and
interoperable. No problems were found. Their report can be found at:
https://www.ietf.org/proceedings/95/slides/slides-95-6man-2.pdf
No MIB, Media, or other expert reviews are required.
Personnel:
Who is the Document Shepherd? Who is the Responsible Area Director?
Document Shepherd: Ole Trøan
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 was reviewed by the Document Shepherd and believes 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.
Nothing, issues raised in the working group are discussed in working
group summary above.
(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
(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.
(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?
The document has had extensive review in the 6MAN working group and
there is broad support to this version of the IPv6 specification as an
Internet Standard.
(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. The biggest area of conflict has been
around text describing Extension Header Insertion, there are strong
opinions on both sides.
(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.
Nothing serious. A few miscellaneous warning about line spacing and
notice that the reference to draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis is a down
reference. Draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis will be submitted for Internet
Standard with this.
(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?
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?
The only normative reference this is not an RFC, is a reference to
draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis. This draft is also being submitted to the
IESG for Internet standard around the same time.
(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.
[RFC2474] Nichols, K., Blake, S., Baker, F., and D. Black,
"Definition of the Differentiated Services Field (DS
Field) in the IPv4 and IPv6 Headers", RFC 2474, DOI
10.17487/RFC2474, December 1998,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2474>.
[RFC3168] Ramakrishnan, K., Floyd, S., and D. Black, "The Addition
of Explicit Congestion Notification (ECN) to IP", RFC
3168, DOI 10.17487/RFC3168, September 2001,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3168>.
[RFC6437] Amante, S., Carpenter, B., Jiang, S., and J. Rajahalme,
"IPv6 Flow Label Specification", RFC 6437, DOI 10.17487/
RFC6437, November 2011,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6437>.
RFC4443 is also listed, but the working group is going to request that
RFC4443 be advance in place to Internet Standard.
(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 obsoletes RFC2460. This is indicated in the header and
abstract.
(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 does not make any new assignment, but it does requests
that the IANA update a number of IANA registries to point to this
document instead of RFC2460.
(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.
None.
(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