Shepherd writeup
rfc8981-12

As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document
Shepherd Write-Up. Changes are expected over time.


This version is dated 1 November 2019.


(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. Type is indicated on the title page.
A host's selection of an interface identifier can be thought of as an internal only matter. The number of addresses and frequency of change has implications on the network and other infrastructure, requiring prescribed behaviour, which is why it is a standards track document.


(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:


Relevant content can frequently be found in the abstract and/or introduction of the document. If not, this may be an indication that there are deficiencies in the abstract or introduction.


   This document describes an extension that causes nodes to generate
   global scope addresses with randomized interface identifiers that
   change over time.  Changing global scope addresses over time limits
   the window of time during which eavesdroppers and other information
   collectors may trivially perform address-based network activity
   correlation when the same address is employed for multiple
   transactions by the same node.  Additionally, it reduces the window
   of exposure of a node via an addresses that becomes revealed as a
   result of active communication.  This document obsoletes RFC4941.


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?


No.


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, YANG 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?


There are multiple implementations of the mechanism described.


Personnel:


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


Ole Trøan is the document shepherd and Erik Kline is the responsible AD.


(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.


This document is an update of RFC4941. The document shepherd has reviewed every change to the document as it has processed as well as a thorough read through of the whole final document.


(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.


The recommendation in RFC4941 was created when the default IPv6 IIDs in SLAAC were based on EUI-64 identifiers. That is, containing a globally unique identifier that could be used to track user's across networks.
The mechanism's purpose is to improve a user's privacy and the document shepherd has asked for reviews specifically in that area (review by Christian Huitema).
The mechanism also has operational consequences for the network. Where hosts have many addresses that change relatively frequently. The operational considerations have been discussed and reviewed on the mailing list. 


(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.


There are no concerns.


(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?


Fernando Gont and Suresh Krishnan have confirmed conformance.
The original authors from RFC4941 have not been reachable.


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


No.


(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?


This is a document the working group has worked on through 3 iterations. There is strong 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.)


No.


(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.


There are no nits.


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


None required.


(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?


No.


(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.


There are no downward references.


(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 RFC4941. That is listed on the title page.


(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 8126).


No IANA considerations.


(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, YANG modules, etc.


There are none.


(20) If the document contains a YANG module, has the module been checked with any of the recommended validation tools (https://trac.ietf.org/trac/ops/wiki/yang-review-tools) for syntax and formatting validation? If there are any resulting errors or warnings, what is the justification for not fixing them at this time? Does the YANG module comply with the Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA) as specified in RFC8342?


This document does not contain a YANG module.
Back