IP Version 6 Addressing Architecture
draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-09

(Via drafts-lastcall@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

The IANA Services Operator has completed its review of draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-07. If any part of this review is inaccurate, please let us know.

The following registries contain references to [RFC4291]. In each case the reference will be changed to [ RFC-to-be ].

Please note that a newer registry, Incident Object Description Exchange Format v2 (IODEF) at http://www.iana.org/assignments/iodef2, appears to have been missed. We will ask the registry experts to confirm that we can update the reference there as well.

The other registries and pages on the iana.org website to be updated are:

Internet Protocol Version 6 Address Space located at:
www.iana.org/assignments/ipv6-address-space/

IPv6 Global Unicast Address Assignments located at:
www.iana.org/assignments/ipv6-unicast-address-assignments/

IPv6 Multicast Address Space Registry located at:
www.iana.org/assignments/ipv6-multicast-addresses/

Internet Protocol Version 6 (IPv6) Anycast Addresses located at:
www.iana.org/assignments/ipv6-anycast-addresses/

IANA IPv6 Special-Purpose Address Registry located at:
www.iana.org/assignments/iana-ipv6-special-registry/

IP Flow Information Export (IPFIX) Entities located at:
www.iana.org/assignments/ipfix/

Number Resources located at:
www.iana.org/numbers

Protocol Registries located at:
www.iana.org/protocols

Technical requirements for authoritative name servers located at:
www.iana.org/help/nameserver-requirements

IANA notes that references to [RFC4291] and [RFC3307] at the following page:

Modify a Port Number assignment located at:
www.iana.org/form/port-modification

will be examined and potentially removed. The IESG-designated ports experts will be consulted first.

We'll also double-check with the multicast, IPFIX, and IODEF v2 experts.

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 only to confirm what actions will be performed.

Thank you,

Amanda Baber
Lead IANA Services Specialist
PTI

The following Last Call announcement was sent out:

From: The IESG
To: "IETF-Announce"
CC: ipv6@ietf.org, "Ole Troan" , suresh.krishnan@ericsson.com, otroan@employees.org, draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis@ietf.org, 6man-chairs@ietf.org
Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org
Sender:
Subject: Last Call:  (IP Version 6 Addressing Architecture) to Internet Standard


The IESG has received a request from the IPv6 Maintenance WG (6man) to
consider the following document:
- 'IP Version 6 Addressing Architecture'
  as Internet 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 2017-03-01. 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 specification defines the addressing architecture of the IP
  Version 6 (IPv6) protocol.  The document includes the IPv6 addressing
  model, text representations of IPv6 addresses, definition of IPv6
  unicast addresses, anycast addresses, and multicast addresses, and an
  IPv6 node's required addresses.

  This document obsoletes RFC 4291, "IP Version 6 Addressing
  Architecture".




The file can be obtained via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis/

IESG discussion can be tracked via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis/ballot/


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

A new version is forthcoming to address the INT dir review from Brian Haberman and the comments that followed on the IETF discussion and the 6man mailing lists

RFC4291bis Writeup
-------------------

Name: draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis
Revision: 06
Title: IP Version 6 Addressing Architecture
Document date: 2016-11-15
Group: 6man
Pages: 32

(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

  RFC4291 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 specification defines the addressing architecture of the IP
  Version 6 (IPv6) protocol.  The document includes the IPv6 addressing
  model, text representations of IPv6 addresses, definition of IPv6
  unicast addresses, anycast addresses, and multicast addresses, and an
  IPv6 node's required addresses.

  This document obsoletes RFC 4291, "IP Version 6 Addressing
  Architecture".


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.  As noted below, one update to RFC4291 was found to not have
  any implementations, it's update was backed out.

  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
  RFC4291 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.


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.  Their report can be found at:
  https://www.ietf.org/proceedings/95/slides/slides-95-6man-2.pdf.  The
  update to RFC4291 by RFC7371 was found to not have any implementations
  and it's update was removed from this document.

  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.


(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-rfc2460bis is a down
  reference. Draft-ietf-6man-rfc2460bis will be submitted for Internet
  Standard with this draft.


(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-rfc2460bis. 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.

  Nothing other than draft-ietf-6man-rfc2460bis discussed in the
  previous section.
 

(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 RFC4291. 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 RFC4291.


(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