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?

  Proposed Standard.  It Obsoletes RFC3484, an existing standards track
  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 describes two algorithms, for source address selection
  and for destination address selection.  The algorithms specify
  default behavior for all Internet Protocol version 6 (IPv6)
  implementations.  They do not override choices made by applications
  or upper-layer protocols, nor do they preclude the development of
  more advanced mechanisms for address selection.  The two algorithms
  share a common context, including an optional mechanism for allowing
  administrators to provide policy that can override the default
  behavior.  In dual stack implementations, the destination address
  selection algorithm can consider both IPv4 and IPv6 addresses -
  depending on the available source addresses, the algorithm might
  prefer IPv6 addresses over IPv4 addresses, or vice-versa.

  All IPv6 nodes, including both hosts and routers, must implement
  default address selection as defined in this specification.

Working Group Summary

  The working group has been working on this replacement to RFC3484 for several
  There has been a very active discussion and there is a strong
consensus to move it forward.

Document Quality

  This document has been reviewed by many people and the chairs believe there
  agreement in the w.g. to move it forward.


  Bob Hinden is the Document Shepherd.
  Brian Haberman is the Responsible 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.

  Read the document and checked for NITs.  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? 


(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.


(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.

  The document authors:

    Dave Thaler
    Richard Draves
    Arifumi Matsumoto
    Tim Chown

have said they complied with the IPR rules as defined in BCP 78 and BCP 79.

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

  I am not aware of any IPR disclosures.

(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 strong consensus to move this forward.  The working groups
  thinks it solves an important problem and should replace RFC3484.

(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

  idnits complained about several instances of IPv4 and IPv6 addresses
  that are not the "documentation addresses". 

  == There are 4 instances of lines with non-RFC5735-compliant IPv4 addresses
      in the document.  If these are example addresses, they should be changed.

  The above all intentionally use IPv4 link-scoped addresses, which is
  what they're showing the effect on in the examples.  There are no such
  addresses reserved for documentation purposes.

  == There are 9 instances of lines with private range IPv4 addresses in the
      document.  If these are generic example addresses, they should be changed
      to use any of the ranges defined in RFC 5735 (or successor): 192.0.2.x,
      198.51.100.x or 203.0.113.x.

  The above all intentionally use IPv4 private addresses, which is what they're
  showing the effect on in the examples.  There are no such addresses reserved
  for documentation purposes.

  == There are 5 instances of lines with non-RFC3849-compliant IPv6 addresses
      in the document.  If these are example addresses, they should be changed.

  The above intentionally uses the 6to4 prefix, but c633:6401 is an embedded
  address of which is an RFC 5737 documentation address (TEST-

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


(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?


(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.


(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, it obsoletes RFC3484 as shown 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).

  There are no IANA actions defined in this document. 

(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.