SNAC Router Flag in ICMPv6 Router Advertisement Messages
draft-ietf-6man-snac-router-ra-flag-08

[Ballot comment]
Thanks to the authors and WG for keeping this draft short and clear.
Thanks to Jen Linkova for the extremely helpful and up-to-date shepherds' write-up.

[Ballot comment]
I don't object, but it's unclear to me why a separate document is needed when it appears everything of relevance is in the other document. Isn't this what Early Allocation is for?

[Ballot comment]
Thanks to both Prachi Jain and Shivan Sahib for their secdir reviews.

Section 1, first sentence:  Perhaps 'transmit' should be 'transit'?
Section 1, para 2:  Spell out ND the first time it appears (it is not on the well-known list).

I look forward to balloting on draft-ietf-snac-simple, apparently most of the security considerations will be there.

[Ballot comment]
Hi Jonathan, 6MAN,

Thank you for the effort put into the new revision to unlock cluster C525.

My suggestions were already addressed [1][2]. I have no additional comments.

Cheers,
Med

[1] https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/jfI9KJzIS4t6_WHQdptVwLTs4dI/

[2] https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/x1_mGXd5LiZ9dposM-e3sHtx6fU/

[Ballot comment]
Quick refresh, and a copy from the shepherd write-up:

---
The document was retuned to the 6MAN working to resolve an issue with a
normative reference to .  After discussion at the last
IETF meeting and on the list, a way to make that reference Informative was
developed, the current version does that.  The changes can be seen in this diff:

https://author-tools.ietf.org/iddiff?url1=draft-ietf-6man-snac-router-ra-flag-03&url2=draft-ietf-6man-snac-router-ra-flag-04&difftype=--html
---

I.e., beside the above discussion, some other changes were done.

IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

IANA has completed its review of draft-ietf-6man-snac-router-ra-flag-06. If any part of this review is inaccurate, please let us know.

IANA understands that, upon approval of this document, there is a single action which we must complete.

In the IPv6 ND Router Advertisement Flags registry in the Internet Control Message Protocol version 6 (ICMPv6) Parameters registry group located at:

https://www.iana.org/assignments/icmpv6-parameters/

the existing registration for:

RA Option Bit: 6
Description: S - SNAC Router Flag

will have its reference changed to [ RFC-to-be ].

We understand that this is the only action required to be completed upon approval of this document.

NOTE: The action requested in this document will not be completed until the document has been approved for publication as an RFC. This message is meant only to confirm the action that will be performed.

For definitions of IANA review states, please see:

https://datatracker.ietf.org/help/state/draft/iana-review

Thank you,

David Dong
IANA Services Sr. Specialist

The following Last Call announcement was sent out (ends 2026-05-18):

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC: 6man-chairs@ietf.org, draft-ietf-6man-snac-router-ra-flag@ietf.org, evyncke@cisco.com, furry13@gmail.com, ipv6@ietf.org
Reply-To: last-call@ietf.org
Sender:
Subject: Last Call:  (SNAC Router Flag in ICMPv6 Router Advertisement Messages) to Proposed Standard


The IESG has received a request from the IPv6 Maintenance WG (6man) to
consider the following document: - 'SNAC Router Flag in ICMPv6 Router
Advertisement Messages'
  as Proposed 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
last-call@ietf.org mailing lists by 2026-05-18. 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 document defines a new flag, the SNAC Router flag, in the Router
  Advertisement message that can be used to distinguish configuration
  information sent by SNAC routers from information sent by transit
  routers.




The file can be obtained via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-6man-snac-router-ra-flag/



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

# Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents

*This version is dated 4 July 2022.*

## Document History

1. Does the working group (WG) consensus represent the strong concurrence of a
  few individuals, with others being silent, or did it reach broad agreement?

The document has been extensively discussed on the list and during 6MAN sessions for the last few IETFs.
It should be noted that the document just defines a single bit, while all details about sematnics of that bit are in scope for the SNAC WG.
So the support was expressed mostly by participants who are active in both areas (6man and snac), but it was a broad agreement between them that the document is useful (even crucial for SNAC) and shall be moved forward.

The document was retuned to the 6MAN working to resolve an issue with a normative reference to
.  After discussion at the last IETF meeting and on the list, a way to make that reference
Informative was developed, the current version does that.  The changes can be seen in this diff:

https://author-tools.ietf.org/iddiff?url1=draft-ietf-6man-snac-router-ra-flag-03&url2=draft-ietf-6man-snac-router-ra-flag-04&difftype=--html

A new working group last call was completed on 2026-04-23.  This resulted in a few other changes to clarify the document.  The chairs believe there is a consensus to advance again the document to the IESG.

2. Was there controversy about particular points, or were there decisions where
  the consensus was particularly rough?

No, the content of the draft did not cause any controversy.
The topic of which group this document belongs (6man or SNAC) was discussed extensively (see #5 below).


3. Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If
  so, please summarize 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.

4. For protocol documents, are there existing implementations of the contents of
  the document? Have a significant number of potential implementers indicated
  plans to implement? Are any existing implementations reported somewhere,
  either in the document itself (as [RFC 7942][3] recommends) or elsewhere
  (where)?

The OpenThread project already implements this: https://github.com/openthread/openthread

The author believes that practically all Thread-based products (including Thread Border Routers in-market and in-development) incorporate the OpenThread implementation.

## Additional Reviews

5. Do the contents of this document closely interact with technologies in other
  IETF working groups or external organizations, and would it therefore benefit
  from their review? Have those reviews occurred? If yes, describe which
  reviews took place.

The sole purpose of this document is to request an RA flag, which will be used by SNAC routers. Semantics of the flag and how the flag is processed by SNAC routers are defined in draft-ietf-snac-simple, which belongs to the SNAC WG. So yes, this document closely interacts with SNAC.
Interaction of this draft with the SNAC was discussed extensively at IETF119 and on the mailing lists. In particular, both WGs (and their chairs) spent substential amoutn of time discussion:

- should the flag be defined in a dedicated draft or should it be a part of draft-ietf-snac-simple?
- if it's a separate draft (snac-router-ra-flag), which WG does it belong to - 6MAN or SNAC - and which group shall adopt it?

After the decision was made to have a separate draft, the draft content was reviewed by the SNAC WG.
The WGLC email was forwared to teh SNAC mailing list and a number of active SNAC participants expressed their support for advancing the draft.


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

No such review required.

7. If the document contains a YANG module, has the final version of the module
  been checked with any of the [recommended validation tools][4] 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 [RFC 8342][5]?

The document contains no YANG module.

8. Describe reviews and automated checks performed to validate sections of the
  final version of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code,
  BNF rules, MIB definitions, CBOR's CDDL, etc.

The document contains no such sections.

## Document Shepherd Checks

9. Based on the shepherd's review of the document, is it their opinion that this
  document is needed, clearly written, complete, correctly designed, and ready
  to be handed off to the responsible Area Director?

I believe that the document defines a key component of the SNAC framework, and, therefore, is very much needed.
The document is well-written and is ready to be advanced.

10. Several IETF Areas have assembled [lists of common issues that their
    reviewers encounter][6]. For which areas have such issues been identified
    and addressed? For which does this still need to happen in subsequent
    reviews?

I've reviewed the list of issues and the document. I do not believe the document contains any of those issues.


11. What type of RFC publication is being requested on the IETF stream ([Best
    Current Practice][12], [Proposed Standard, Internet Standard][13],
    [Informational, Experimental or Historic][14])? Why is this the proper type
    of RFC? Do all Datatracker state attributes correctly reflect this intent?

Proposed Standard.  This document defines a new Router Advertisement flag, and therefore needs to be a standard.

12. Have reasonable efforts been made to remind all authors of the intellectual
    property rights (IPR) disclosure obligations described in [BCP 79][7]? To
    the best of your knowledge, have all required disclosures been filed? If
    not, explain why. If yes, summarize any relevant discussion, including links
    to publicly-available messages when applicable.

The author is not aware of any IPR claims.

13. Has each author, editor, and contributor shown their willingness to be
    listed as such? If the total number of authors and editors on the front page
    is greater than five, please provide a justification.

The document has one author, who confirmed his willingness to be listed as such.

14. Document any remaining I-D nits in this document. Simply running the [idnits
    tool][8] is not enough; please review the ["Content Guidelines" on
    authors.ietf.org][15]. (Also note that the current idnits tool generates
    some incorrect warnings; a rewrite is underway.)

I do not see any remaining nits in the document.

15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the [IESG
    Statement on Normative and Informative References][16].

We believe the current set of references are correct.  As stated above in Document History, this version of the document changed the reference for  to Informative to allow this document to be published.

16. List any normative references that are not freely available to anyone. Did
    the community have sufficient access to review any such normative
    references?

There are no such references.

17. Are there any normative downward references (see [RFC 3967][9] and [BCP
    97][10]) that are not already listed in the [DOWNREF registry][17]? If so,
    list them.

No such references.

18. Are there normative references to documents that are not ready to be
    submitted to the IESG for publication or are otherwise in an unclear state?
    If so, what is the plan for their completion?

No.

19. Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? If
    so, does the Datatracker metadata correctly reflect this and are those RFCs
    listed on the title page, in the abstract, and discussed in the
    introduction? If not, explain why and point to the part of the document
    where the relationship of this document to these other RFCs is discussed.

No, publication of this document does not affect any existing RFCs.

20. 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 aspects of the document requiring IANA assignments are
    associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm
    that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm
    that each newly created IANA registry specifies its initial contents,
    allocations procedures, and a reasonable name (see [RFC 8126][11]).

- The document requires IANA to allocate a new flag from the  "IPv6 ND Router Advertisement flags" registry.
The registry is clearly identified and the reference to the registry is included as a normative one.

Actually an early allocation has been made already, so IANA is happy ;)

21. List any new IANA registries that require Designated Expert Review for
    future allocations. Are the instructions to the Designated Expert clear?
    Please include suggestions of designated experts, if appropriate.

There are no new IANA registries defined or referenced in this document.

[1]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/
[2]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4858.html
[3]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7942.html
[4]: https://wiki.ietf.org/group/ops/yang-review-tools
[5]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8342.html
[6]: https://wiki.ietf.org/group/iesg/ExpertTopics
[7]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp79
[8]: https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/
[9]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3967.html
[10]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp97
[11]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8126.html
[12]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-5
[13]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.1
[14]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.2
[15]: https://authors.ietf.org/en/content-guidelines-overview
[16]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/normative-informative-references/
[17]: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/downref/

Note:

The document was retuned to the 6MAN working to resolve an issue with a normative reference to
.  This version of the document does that, the changes can be seen in this diff:

https://author-tools.ietf.org/iddiff?url1=draft-ietf-6man-snac-router-ra-flag-03&url2=draft-ietf-6man-snac-router-ra-flag-04&difftype=--html

A new working group last call was completed on 2026-04-23.  This resulted in a few other changes to clarify the document.  The chairs believe there is a consensus to advance again the document to the IESG.

# Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents

*This version is dated 4 July 2022.*

## Document History

1. Does the working group (WG) consensus represent the strong concurrence of a
  few individuals, with others being silent, or did it reach broad agreement?

The document has been extensively discussed on the list and during 6MAN sessions for the last few IETFs.
It should be noted that the document just defines a single bit, while all details about sematnics of that bit are in scope for the SNAC WG.
So the support was expressed mostly by participants who are active in both areas (6man and snac), but it was a broad agreement between them that the document is useful (even crucial for SNAC) and shall be moved forward.


2. Was there controversy about particular points, or were there decisions where
  the consensus was particularly rough?

No, the content of the draft did not cause any controversy.
The topic of which group this document belongs (6man or SNAC) was discussed extensively (see #5 below).


3. Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If
  so, please summarize 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.

4. For protocol documents, are there existing implementations of the contents of
  the document? Have a significant number of potential implementers indicated
  plans to implement? Are any existing implementations reported somewhere,
  either in the document itself (as [RFC 7942][3] recommends) or elsewhere
  (where)?

The OpenThread project already implements this: https://github.com/openthread/openthread

The author believes that practically all Thread-based products (including Thread Border Routers in-market and in-development) incorporate the OpenThread implementation.

## Additional Reviews

5. Do the contents of this document closely interact with technologies in other
  IETF working groups or external organizations, and would it therefore benefit
  from their review? Have those reviews occurred? If yes, describe which
  reviews took place.

The sole purpose of this document is to request an RA flag, which will be used by SNAC routers. Semantics of the flag and how the flag is processed by SNAC routers are defined in draft-ietf-snac-simple, which belongs to the SNAC WG. So yes, this document closely interacts with SNAC.
Interaction of this draft with the SNAC was discussed extensively at IETF119 and on the mailing lists. In particular, both WGs (and their chairs) spent substential amoutn of time discussion:

- should the flag be defined in a dedicated draft or should it be a part of draft-ietf-snac-simple?
- if it's a separate draft (snac-router-ra-flag), which WG does it belong to - 6MAN or SNAC - and which group shall adopt it?

After the decision was made to have a separate draft, the draft content was reviewed by the SNAC WG.
The WGLC email was forwared to teh SNAC mailing list and a number of active SNAC participants expressed their support for advancing the draft.


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

No such review required.

7. If the document contains a YANG module, has the final version of the module
  been checked with any of the [recommended validation tools][4] 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 [RFC 8342][5]?

The document contains no YANG module.

8. Describe reviews and automated checks performed to validate sections of the
  final version of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code,
  BNF rules, MIB definitions, CBOR's CDDL, etc.

The document contains no such sections.

## Document Shepherd Checks

9. Based on the shepherd's review of the document, is it their opinion that this
  document is needed, clearly written, complete, correctly designed, and ready
  to be handed off to the responsible Area Director?

I believe that the document defines a key component of the SNAC framework, and, therefore, is very much needed.
The document is well-written and is ready to be advanced.

10. Several IETF Areas have assembled [lists of common issues that their
    reviewers encounter][6]. For which areas have such issues been identified
    and addressed? For which does this still need to happen in subsequent
    reviews?

I've reviewed the list of issues and the document. I do not believe the document contains any of those issues.


11. What type of RFC publication is being requested on the IETF stream ([Best
    Current Practice][12], [Proposed Standard, Internet Standard][13],
    [Informational, Experimental or Historic][14])? Why is this the proper type
    of RFC? Do all Datatracker state attributes correctly reflect this intent?

Proposed Standard.  This document defines a new Router Advertisement flag, and therefore needs to be a standard.

12. Have reasonable efforts been made to remind all authors of the intellectual
    property rights (IPR) disclosure obligations described in [BCP 79][7]? To
    the best of your knowledge, have all required disclosures been filed? If
    not, explain why. If yes, summarize any relevant discussion, including links
    to publicly-available messages when applicable.

The author is not aware of any IPR claims.

13. Has each author, editor, and contributor shown their willingness to be
    listed as such? If the total number of authors and editors on the front page
    is greater than five, please provide a justification.

The document has one author, who confirmed his willingness to be listed as such.

14. Document any remaining I-D nits in this document. Simply running the [idnits
    tool][8] is not enough; please review the ["Content Guidelines" on
    authors.ietf.org][15]. (Also note that the current idnits tool generates
    some incorrect warnings; a rewrite is underway.)

I do not see any remaining nits in the document.

15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the [IESG
    Statement on Normative and Informative References][16].

The document doesn't contain any informative references. It contains only 5 normative ones and, in my opinion, they all should be normative:

- RFC2119 and RFC8174 need to be normative as they concern normative language.
- RFC4861 needs to be normative as it defines the Router Advertisement format, and this document defines a bit in the RA.
- IANA-RA-FLAGS refers to the IANA registry the new flag is to allocated from, so it's also a normative reference.
- I-D.ietf-snac-simple defines the semantics of the flag, therefore ietf-snac-simple must be read to understand or implement the new RA flag, at least on the client side.

16. List any normative references that are not freely available to anyone. Did
    the community have sufficient access to review any such normative
    references?

There are no such references.

17. Are there any normative downward references (see [RFC 3967][9] and [BCP
    97][10]) that are not already listed in the [DOWNREF registry][17]? If so,
    list them.

No such references.

18. Are there normative references to documents that are not ready to be
    submitted to the IESG for publication or are otherwise in an unclear state?
    If so, what is the plan for their completion?

Yes, this document contains a normative reference to https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-snac-simple/

The authors of draft-ietf-snac-simple and the SNAC WG chairs believe that the document is progressing fast and is expected to be ready for the WGLC around IETF122.

The author of draft-ietf-6man-snac-router-ra-flag is aware that draft-ietf-6man-snac-router-ra-flag can not be published before draft-ietf-snac-simple.


19. Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? If
    so, does the Datatracker metadata correctly reflect this and are those RFCs
    listed on the title page, in the abstract, and discussed in the
    introduction? If not, explain why and point to the part of the document
    where the relationship of this document to these other RFCs is discussed.

No, publication of this document does not affect any existing RFCs.

20. 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 aspects of the document requiring IANA assignments are
    associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm
    that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm
    that each newly created IANA registry specifies its initial contents,
    allocations procedures, and a reasonable name (see [RFC 8126][11]).

- The document requires IANA to allocate a new flag from the  "IPv6 ND Router Advertisement flags" registry.
The registry is clearly identified and the reference to the registry is included as a normative one.

Actually an early allocation has been made already, so IANA is happy ;)

21. List any new IANA registries that require Designated Expert Review for
    future allocations. Are the instructions to the Designated Expert clear?
    Please include suggestions of designated experts, if appropriate.

There are no new IANA registries defined or referenced in this document.

[1]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/
[2]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4858.html
[3]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7942.html
[4]: https://wiki.ietf.org/group/ops/yang-review-tools
[5]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8342.html
[6]: https://wiki.ietf.org/group/iesg/ExpertTopics
[7]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp79
[8]: https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/
[9]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3967.html
[10]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp97
[11]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8126.html
[12]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-5
[13]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.1
[14]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.2
[15]: https://authors.ietf.org/en/content-guidelines-overview
[16]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/normative-informative-references/
[17]: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/downref/

Note:

The document was retuned to the 6MAN working to resolve an issue with a normative reference to
.  This version of the document does that, the changes can be seen in this diff:

https://author-tools.ietf.org/iddiff?url1=draft-ietf-6man-snac-router-ra-flag-03&url2=draft-ietf-6man-snac-router-ra-flag-04&difftype=--html

A new working group last call was completed on 2026-04-23.  This resulted in a few other changes to clarify the document.  The chairs believe there is a consensus to advance again the document to the IESG.

# Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents

*This version is dated 4 July 2022.*

## Document History

1. Does the working group (WG) consensus represent the strong concurrence of a
  few individuals, with others being silent, or did it reach broad agreement?

The document has been extensively discussed on the list and during 6MAN sessions for the last few IETFs.
It should be noted that the document just defines a single bit, while all details about sematnics of that bit are in scope for the SNAC WG.
So the support was expressed mostly by participants who are active in both areas (6man and snac), but it was a broad agreement between them that the document is useful (even crucial for SNAC) and shall be moved forward.


2. Was there controversy about particular points, or were there decisions where
  the consensus was particularly rough?

No, the content of the draft did not cause any controversy.
The topic of which group this document belongs (6man or SNAC) was discussed extensively (see #5 below).


3. Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If
  so, please summarize 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.

4. For protocol documents, are there existing implementations of the contents of
  the document? Have a significant number of potential implementers indicated
  plans to implement? Are any existing implementations reported somewhere,
  either in the document itself (as [RFC 7942][3] recommends) or elsewhere
  (where)?

The OpenThread project already implements this: https://github.com/openthread/openthread

The author believes that practically all Thread-based products (including Thread Border Routers in-market and in-development) incorporate the OpenThread implementation.

## Additional Reviews

5. Do the contents of this document closely interact with technologies in other
  IETF working groups or external organizations, and would it therefore benefit
  from their review? Have those reviews occurred? If yes, describe which
  reviews took place.

The sole purpose of this document is to request an RA flag, which will be used by SNAC routers. Semantics of the flag and how the flag is processed by SNAC routers are defined in draft-ietf-snac-simple, which belongs to the SNAC WG. So yes, this document closely interacts with SNAC.
Interaction of this draft with the SNAC was discussed extensively at IETF119 and on the mailing lists. In particular, both WGs (and their chairs) spent substential amoutn of time discussion:

- should the flag be defined in a dedicated draft or should it be a part of draft-ietf-snac-simple?
- if it's a separate draft (snac-router-ra-flag), which WG does it belong to - 6MAN or SNAC - and which group shall adopt it?

After the decision was made to have a separate draft, the draft content was reviewed by the SNAC WG.
The WGLC email was forwared to teh SNAC mailing list and a number of active SNAC participants expressed their support for advancing the draft.


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

No such review required.

7. If the document contains a YANG module, has the final version of the module
  been checked with any of the [recommended validation tools][4] 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 [RFC 8342][5]?

The document contains no YANG module.

8. Describe reviews and automated checks performed to validate sections of the
  final version of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code,
  BNF rules, MIB definitions, CBOR's CDDL, etc.

The document contains no such sections.

## Document Shepherd Checks

9. Based on the shepherd's review of the document, is it their opinion that this
  document is needed, clearly written, complete, correctly designed, and ready
  to be handed off to the responsible Area Director?

I believe that the document defines a key component of the SNAC framework, and, therefore, is very much needed.
The document is well-written and is ready to be advanced.

10. Several IETF Areas have assembled [lists of common issues that their
    reviewers encounter][6]. For which areas have such issues been identified
    and addressed? For which does this still need to happen in subsequent
    reviews?

I've reviewed the list of issues and the document. I do not believe the document contains any of those issues.


11. What type of RFC publication is being requested on the IETF stream ([Best
    Current Practice][12], [Proposed Standard, Internet Standard][13],
    [Informational, Experimental or Historic][14])? Why is this the proper type
    of RFC? Do all Datatracker state attributes correctly reflect this intent?

Proposed Standard.  This document defines a new Router Advertisement flag, and therefore needs to be a standard.

12. Have reasonable efforts been made to remind all authors of the intellectual
    property rights (IPR) disclosure obligations described in [BCP 79][7]? To
    the best of your knowledge, have all required disclosures been filed? If
    not, explain why. If yes, summarize any relevant discussion, including links
    to publicly-available messages when applicable.

The author is not aware of any IPR claims.

13. Has each author, editor, and contributor shown their willingness to be
    listed as such? If the total number of authors and editors on the front page
    is greater than five, please provide a justification.

The document has one author, who confirmed his willingness to be listed as such.

14. Document any remaining I-D nits in this document. Simply running the [idnits
    tool][8] is not enough; please review the ["Content Guidelines" on
    authors.ietf.org][15]. (Also note that the current idnits tool generates
    some incorrect warnings; a rewrite is underway.)

I do not see any remaining nits in the document.

15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the [IESG
    Statement on Normative and Informative References][16].

The document doesn't contain any informative references. It contains only 5 normative ones and, in my opinion, they all should be normative:

- RFC2119 and RFC8174 need to be normative as they concern normative language.
- RFC4861 needs to be normative as it defines the Router Advertisement format, and this document defines a bit in the RA.
- IANA-RA-FLAGS refers to the IANA registry the new flag is to allocated from, so it's also a normative reference.
- I-D.ietf-snac-simple defines the semantics of the flag, therefore ietf-snac-simple must be read to understand or implement the new RA flag, at least on the client side.

16. List any normative references that are not freely available to anyone. Did
    the community have sufficient access to review any such normative
    references?

There are no such references.

17. Are there any normative downward references (see [RFC 3967][9] and [BCP
    97][10]) that are not already listed in the [DOWNREF registry][17]? If so,
    list them.

No such references.

18. Are there normative references to documents that are not ready to be
    submitted to the IESG for publication or are otherwise in an unclear state?
    If so, what is the plan for their completion?

Yes, this document contains a normative reference to https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-snac-simple/

The authors of draft-ietf-snac-simple and the SNAC WG chairs believe that the document is progressing fast and is expected to be ready for the WGLC around IETF122.

The author of draft-ietf-6man-snac-router-ra-flag is aware that draft-ietf-6man-snac-router-ra-flag can not be published before draft-ietf-snac-simple.


19. Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? If
    so, does the Datatracker metadata correctly reflect this and are those RFCs
    listed on the title page, in the abstract, and discussed in the
    introduction? If not, explain why and point to the part of the document
    where the relationship of this document to these other RFCs is discussed.

No, publication of this document does not affect any existing RFCs.

20. 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 aspects of the document requiring IANA assignments are
    associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm
    that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm
    that each newly created IANA registry specifies its initial contents,
    allocations procedures, and a reasonable name (see [RFC 8126][11]).

- The document requires IANA to allocate a new flag from the  "IPv6 ND Router Advertisement flags" registry.
The registry is clearly identified and the reference to the registry is included as a normative one.

Actually an early allocation has been made already, so IANA is happy ;)

21. List any new IANA registries that require Designated Expert Review for
    future allocations. Are the instructions to the Designated Expert clear?
    Please include suggestions of designated experts, if appropriate.

There are no new IANA registries defined or referenced in this document.

[1]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/
[2]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4858.html
[3]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7942.html
[4]: https://wiki.ietf.org/group/ops/yang-review-tools
[5]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8342.html
[6]: https://wiki.ietf.org/group/iesg/ExpertTopics
[7]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp79
[8]: https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/
[9]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3967.html
[10]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp97
[11]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8126.html
[12]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-5
[13]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.1
[14]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.2
[15]: https://authors.ietf.org/en/content-guidelines-overview
[16]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/normative-informative-references/
[17]: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/downref/

draft-ietf-6man-snac-router-ra-flag has currently a normative reference to draft-ietf-snac-simple, which is ready for publication before months (not to mention dependencies to DNSSD drafts), i.e., it blocks the whole Cluster C525...

The I-D is sent back to the 6MAN WG to check whether the WG agrees with changing the reference to snac-simple to informative. This is probably a case where it is unclear whether normative was the right choice.

Mohamed Boucadair and others will submit text changes in sections 1 and 3 of draft-ietf-6man-snac-router-ra-flag to allow this change of reference types.

[Ballot comment]
Thanks for both Shivan Kaul Sahib and Tomas Fossati for their reviews.  Both have suggestions that impact Security Considerations,
and both suggestions should be considered either for this draft or for draft-ietf-snac-simple.  It would be nice to hear whether
these suggestions are being considered, in addition to which draft is considered appropriate.

I also echo Paul's comment about the separation of this draft and draft-ietf-snac-simple.  It would seem logical to have put them together.

[Ballot comment]
I found it a it weird that this document registers a new flag with IANA, but the definition and usage of the flag is done in another document (draft-ietf-snac-simple) It feels as if this document should have been part of that document instead of being separate, unless the description of the new flag was moved from the snac-simple document to this one.

[Ballot discuss]
Section 3, paragraph 2
>    The SNAC router flag is to be used by SNAC routers.  The use of this
>    flag is documented in [I-D.ietf-snac-simple].  Devices that do not
>    operate as SNAC routers [I-D.ietf-snac-simple] MUST NOT set the SNAC
>    router flag, and MUST silently ignore the SNAC router flag.  This
>    means that the presence or absence of the flag should not change the
>    behavior of such devices in any way (other than that it is of course
>    permissible to log and cache the value of the flag as part of normal
>    router advertisement processing, where applicable).

Hear hear! The DISCUSS criteria for IESG telechats serve to ensure that only significant, unresolved issues block the advancement of a document. More importantly, it is meant to stimulate a discussion around the issue.

Toward that end, I would like to Adrian Farel for his OPSDIR and Juan-Carlos Zuniga for his INTDIR review.

I agree and 'am holding a DISCUSS on the points raised by both of them as it relates to the use of BCP 14 language to describe the behavior of a non-SNAC router and hope that the author, other contributors, and reviewers come to some form of agreement before moving the document forward. My reading of the thread indicates that the comments have not been adequately addressed, and if that is incorrect feel free to correct me.

[Ballot discuss]
Section 3, paragraph 2
>    The SNAC router flag is to be used by SNAC routers.  The use of this
>    flag is documented in [I-D.ietf-snac-simple].  Devices that do not
>    operate as SNAC routers [I-D.ietf-snac-simple] MUST NOT set the SNAC
>    router flag, and MUST silently ignore the SNAC router flag.  This
>    means that the presence or absence of the flag should not change the
>    behavior of such devices in any way (other than that it is of course
>    permissible to log and cache the value of the flag as part of normal
>    router advertisement processing, where applicable).

Hear hear! The DISCUSS criteria for IESG telechats serve to ensure that only significant, unresolved issues block the advancement of a document. More importantly, it is meant to stimulate a discussion around the issue.

Toward that end, I would like to Adrian Farel for his OPSDIR and Juan-Carlos Zuniga for his INTDIR review.

I agree and 'am holding a DISCUSS on the points raised by both of them as it relates to the use of BCP 14 language to describe the behavior of a non-SNAC router and hope that the author, other contributors, and reviewers come to some form of agreement before moving the document forward. My reading of the thread indicates that the comments have not been adequately addressed, in which case feel free to correct me.

[Ballot comment]
DOWNREF [I-D.ietf-snac-simple] from this Proposed Standard to
draft-ietf-snac-simple of unknown standards level. (For IESG discussion. It
seems this DOWNREF was not mentioned in the Last Call and also seems to not
appear in the DOWNREF registry.)

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NIT
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

All comments below are about very minor potential issues that you may choose to
address in some way - or ignore - as you see fit. Some were flagged by
automated tools (via https://github.com/larseggert/ietf-reviewtool), so there
will likely be some false positives. There is no need to let me know what you
did with these suggestions.

Document references draft-ietf-snac-simple-05, but -06 is the latest available
revision.

Section 4, paragraph 2
> on of the SNAC router flag does not changes these considerations. 6. Normativ
>                                    ^^^^^^^
The auxiliary verb "do" requires the base form of the verb.

[Ballot comment]
I agree with Eric V. that the shepherd write-up was good and it helped me to understand that consensus was to split off the snac router ra flag allocation from the draft-ietf-snac-simple document, which seemed when reading this draft as an unusual procedural decision.

[Ballot comment]

# Éric Vyncke, INT AD, comments for draft-ietf-6man-snac-router-ra-flag-02

Thank you for the work put into this document. As the responsible AD for the SNAC WG, this document is important for draft-ietf-snac-simple and the relationships between the 6MAN and SNAC WG were discussed and the process agreed upon by the respective WG chairs and ADs.

Please find below some non-blocking COMMENT points (but replies would be appreciated even if only for my own education).

Special thanks to Jen Linkova for the shepherd's *very* detailed write-up including the WG consensus, why it is in 6MAN, relationship with SNAC WG, and the justification of the intended status.

Other thanks to Thomas Fossati, the IoT directorate reviewer (at my request), please consider this iot-dir review:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/review-ietf-6man-snac-router-ra-flag-02-iotdir-telechat-fossati-2024-11-21/ (Jonathan, please start a discussion with Thomas)

Other thanks to Juan-Carlos Zúñiga, the Internet directorate reviewer (at my request), please consider this int-dir review:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/review-ietf-6man-snac-router-ra-flag-02-intdir-telechat-zuniga-2024-11-26/ (Jonathan, please start a discussion with Juan-Carlos, in my view, there is no need to update RFC 4861/5175 as it is merely one new bit in a registry)

I hope that this review helps to improve the document,

Regards,

-éric


# COMMENTS (non-blocking)

## Section 1

Please add an informational reference to 6LoWPAN RFC.

Also add a reference to RFC 4861 for the RA.

## Section 3

s/The use of this flag is documented in/The use of this flag is specified in/

Like Thomas, I think that the RA guard paragraph should either be moved in the security considerations or in a new operational considerations. An informative reference to RA-guard should be added as well.

Finally, I would use 'will' rather than 'should' in `devices on the infrastructure network should never receive an RA with the SNAC router flag set`.

## Section 5

Please reply to Roman Danyliw comment about other nodes pretending to be a SNAC router or about a on-path-attacker setting/clearing this bit. It may even be better to add this part in the snac-simple I-D and add a reference in this draft to the security considerations of snac-simple.

[Ballot comment]
Thank you to Gyan Mishra for the GENART review.

** Section 5.  What is the implication (risk) if this bit being setting (or unset) by a router, host, or on-path attacker?

[Ballot comment]
Thank you to Gyan Mishra for the GENART review.

** Section 5.  What is the implication (risk) if this bit being setting (or unsetting) by a router, host, or on-path attacker?

IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

IANA has completed its review of draft-ietf-6man-snac-router-ra-flag-02. If any part of this review is inaccurate, please let us know.

IANA understands that, upon approval of this document, there is a single action which we must complete.

In the IPv6 ND Router Advertisement flags registry in the Internet Control Message Protocol version 6 (ICMPv6) Parameters registry group located at:

https://www.iana.org/assignments/icmpv6-parameters/

the existing early allocation of:

RA Option Bit: 6
Description: S - SNAC Router Flag

will be made permanent and it's reference changed to [ RFC-to-be ].

We understand that this is the only action required to be completed upon approval of this document.

NOTE: The action requested in this document will not be completed until the document has been approved for publication as an RFC. This message is meant only to confirm the action that will be performed.

For definitions of IANA review states, please see:

https://datatracker.ietf.org/help/state/draft/iana-review

Thank you,

David Dong
IANA Services Sr. Specialist

The following Last Call announcement was sent out (ends 2024-11-11):

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC: 6man-chairs@ietf.org, draft-ietf-6man-snac-router-ra-flag@ietf.org, ek.ietf@gmail.com, furry13@gmail.com, ipv6@ietf.org
Reply-To: last-call@ietf.org
Sender:
Subject: Last Call:  (SNAC Router Flag in ICMPv6 Router Advertisement Messages) to Proposed Standard


The IESG has received a request from the IPv6 Maintenance WG (6man) to
consider the following document: - 'SNAC Router Flag in ICMPv6 Router
Advertisement Messages'
  as Proposed 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
last-call@ietf.org mailing lists by 2024-11-11. 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 document defines a new flag, the SNAC Router flag, in the Router
  Advertisement message that can be used to distinguish configuration
  information sent by SNAC routers from information sent by
  infrastructure routers.  This flag is used only by SNAC routers and
  is ignored by all other devices.




The file can be obtained via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-6man-snac-router-ra-flag/



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


The document contains these normative downward references.
See RFC 3967 for additional information:
    draft-ietf-snac-simple: Automatically Connecting Stub Networks to Unmanaged Infrastructure (None - Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) stream)

# Internet AD comments for draft-ietf-6man-snac-router-ra-flag-02
CC @ekline

* comment syntax:
  - https://github.com/mnot/ietf-comments/blob/main/format.md

## Nits

### Abstract

* Probably best to expand the definition of SNAC in the Abstract, just like
  the expansion in S1.  It'll help improve things for readers.

### S1

* "Stub Network Auto-Configuring Router (SNAC) router"

  One too many "router" mentions there, I think.  Perhaps just

  "Stub Network Auto-Configuring (SNAC) router"

# Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents

*This version is dated 4 July 2022.*

## Document History

1. Does the working group (WG) consensus represent the strong concurrence of a
  few individuals, with others being silent, or did it reach broad agreement?

The document has been extensively discussed on the list and during 6MAN sessions for the last few IETFs.
It should be noted that the document just defines a single bit, while all details about sematnics of that bit are in scope for the SNAC WG.
So the support was expressed mostly by participants who are active in both areas (6man and snac), but it was a broad agreement between them that the document is useful (even crucial for SNAC) and shall be moved forward.


2. Was there controversy about particular points, or were there decisions where
  the consensus was particularly rough?

No, the content of the draft did not cause any controversy.
The topic of which group this document belongs (6man or SNAC) was discussed extensively (see #5 below).


3. Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If
  so, please summarize 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.

4. For protocol documents, are there existing implementations of the contents of
  the document? Have a significant number of potential implementers indicated
  plans to implement? Are any existing implementations reported somewhere,
  either in the document itself (as [RFC 7942][3] recommends) or elsewhere
  (where)?

The OpenThread project already implements this: https://github.com/openthread/openthread

The author believes that practically all Thread-based products (including Thread Border Routers in-market and in-development) incorporate the OpenThread implementation.

## Additional Reviews

5. Do the contents of this document closely interact with technologies in other
  IETF working groups or external organizations, and would it therefore benefit
  from their review? Have those reviews occurred? If yes, describe which
  reviews took place.

The sole purpose of this document is to request an RA flag, which will be used by SNAC routers. Semantics of the flag and how the flag is processed by SNAC routers are defined in draft-ietf-snac-simple, which belongs to the SNAC WG. So yes, this document closely interacts with SNAC.
Interaction of this draft with the SNAC was discussed extensively at IETF119 and on the mailing lists. In particular, both WGs (and their chairs) spent substential amoutn of time discussion:

- should the flag be defined in a dedicated draft or should it be a part of draft-ietf-snac-simple?
- if it's a separate draft (snac-router-ra-flag), which WG does it belong to - 6MAN or SNAC - and which group shall adopt it?

After the decision was made to have a separate draft, the draft content was reviewed by the SNAC WG.
The WGLC email was forwared to teh SNAC mailing list and a number of active SNAC participants expressed their support for advancing the draft.


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

No such review required.

7. If the document contains a YANG module, has the final version of the module
  been checked with any of the [recommended validation tools][4] 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 [RFC 8342][5]?

The document contains no YANG module.

8. Describe reviews and automated checks performed to validate sections of the
  final version of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code,
  BNF rules, MIB definitions, CBOR's CDDL, etc.

The document contains no such sections.

## Document Shepherd Checks

9. Based on the shepherd's review of the document, is it their opinion that this
  document is needed, clearly written, complete, correctly designed, and ready
  to be handed off to the responsible Area Director?

I believe that the document defines a key component of the SNAC framework, and, therefore, is very much needed.
The document is well-written and is ready to be advanced.

10. Several IETF Areas have assembled [lists of common issues that their
    reviewers encounter][6]. For which areas have such issues been identified
    and addressed? For which does this still need to happen in subsequent
    reviews?

I've reviewed the list of issues and the document. I do not believe the document contains any of those issues.


11. What type of RFC publication is being requested on the IETF stream ([Best
    Current Practice][12], [Proposed Standard, Internet Standard][13],
    [Informational, Experimental or Historic][14])? Why is this the proper type
    of RFC? Do all Datatracker state attributes correctly reflect this intent?

Proposed Standard.  This document defines a new Router Advertisement flag, and therefore needs to be a standard.

12. Have reasonable efforts been made to remind all authors of the intellectual
    property rights (IPR) disclosure obligations described in [BCP 79][7]? To
    the best of your knowledge, have all required disclosures been filed? If
    not, explain why. If yes, summarize any relevant discussion, including links
    to publicly-available messages when applicable.

The author is not aware of any IPR claims.

13. Has each author, editor, and contributor shown their willingness to be
    listed as such? If the total number of authors and editors on the front page
    is greater than five, please provide a justification.

The document has one author, who confirmed his willingness to be listed as such.

14. Document any remaining I-D nits in this document. Simply running the [idnits
    tool][8] is not enough; please review the ["Content Guidelines" on
    authors.ietf.org][15]. (Also note that the current idnits tool generates
    some incorrect warnings; a rewrite is underway.)

I do not see any remaining nits in the document.

15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the [IESG
    Statement on Normative and Informative References][16].

The document doesn't contain any informative references. It contains only 5 normative ones and, in my opinion, they all should be normative:

- RFC2119 and RFC8174 need to be normative as they concern normative language.
- RFC4861 needs to be normative as it defines the Router Advertisement format, and this document defines a bit in the RA.
- IANA-RA-FLAGS refers to the IANA registry the new flag is to allocated from, so it's also a normative reference.
- I-D.ietf-snac-simple defines the semantics of the flag, therefore ietf-snac-simple must be read to understand or implement the new RA flag, at least on the client side.

16. List any normative references that are not freely available to anyone. Did
    the community have sufficient access to review any such normative
    references?

There are no such references.

17. Are there any normative downward references (see [RFC 3967][9] and [BCP
    97][10]) that are not already listed in the [DOWNREF registry][17]? If so,
    list them.

No such references.

18. Are there normative references to documents that are not ready to be
    submitted to the IESG for publication or are otherwise in an unclear state?
    If so, what is the plan for their completion?

Yes, this document contains a normative reference to https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-snac-simple/

The authors of draft-ietf-snac-simple and the SNAC WG chairs believe that the document is progressing fast and is expected to be ready for the WGLC around IETF122.

The author of draft-ietf-6man-snac-router-ra-flag is aware that draft-ietf-6man-snac-router-ra-flag can not be published before draft-ietf-snac-simple.


19. Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? If
    so, does the Datatracker metadata correctly reflect this and are those RFCs
    listed on the title page, in the abstract, and discussed in the
    introduction? If not, explain why and point to the part of the document
    where the relationship of this document to these other RFCs is discussed.

No, publication of this document does not affect any existing RFCs.

20. 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 aspects of the document requiring IANA assignments are
    associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm
    that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm
    that each newly created IANA registry specifies its initial contents,
    allocations procedures, and a reasonable name (see [RFC 8126][11]).

- The document requires IANA to allocate a new flag from the  "IPv6 ND Router Advertisement flags" registry.
The registry is clearly identified and the reference to the registry is included as a normative one.

Actually an early allocation has been made already, so IANA is happy ;)

21. List any new IANA registries that require Designated Expert Review for
    future allocations. Are the instructions to the Designated Expert clear?
    Please include suggestions of designated experts, if appropriate.

There are no new IANA registries defined or referenced in this document.

[1]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/
[2]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4858.html
[3]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7942.html
[4]: https://wiki.ietf.org/group/ops/yang-review-tools
[5]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8342.html
[6]: https://wiki.ietf.org/group/iesg/ExpertTopics
[7]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp79
[8]: https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/
[9]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3967.html
[10]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp97
[11]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8126.html
[12]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-5
[13]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.1
[14]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.2
[15]: https://authors.ietf.org/en/content-guidelines-overview
[16]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/normative-informative-references/
[17]: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/downref/

# Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents

*This version is dated 4 July 2022.*

## Document History

1. Does the working group (WG) consensus represent the strong concurrence of a
  few individuals, with others being silent, or did it reach broad agreement?

The document has been extensively discussed on the list and during 6MAN sessions for the last few IETFs.
It should be noted that the document just defines a single bit, while all details about sematnics of that bit are in scope for the SNAC WG.
So the support was expressed mostly by participants who are active in both areas (6man and snac), but it was a broad agreement between them that the document is useful (even crucial for SNAC) and shall be moved forward.


2. Was there controversy about particular points, or were there decisions where
  the consensus was particularly rough?

No, the content of the draft did not cause any controversy.
The topic of which group this document belongs (6man or SNAC) was discussed extensively (see #5 below).


3. Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If
  so, please summarize 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.

4. For protocol documents, are there existing implementations of the contents of
  the document? Have a significant number of potential implementers indicated
  plans to implement? Are any existing implementations reported somewhere,
  either in the document itself (as [RFC 7942][3] recommends) or elsewhere
  (where)?

The OpenThread project already implements this: https://github.com/openthread/openthread

The author believes that practically all Thread-based products (including Thread Border Routers in-market and in-development) incorporate the OpenThread implementation.

## Additional Reviews

5. Do the contents of this document closely interact with technologies in other
  IETF working groups or external organizations, and would it therefore benefit
  from their review? Have those reviews occurred? If yes, describe which
  reviews took place.

The sole purpose of this document is to request an RA flag, which will be used by SNAC routers. Semantics of the flag and how the flag is processed by SNAC routers are defined in draft-ietf-snac-simple, which belongs to the SNAC WG. So yes, this document closely interacts with SNAC.
Interaction of this draft with the SNAC was discussed extensively at IETF119 and on the mailing lists. In particular, both WGs (and their chairs) spent substential amoutn of time discussion:

- should the flag be defined in a dedicated draft or should it be a part of draft-ietf-snac-simple?
- if it's a separate draft (snac-router-ra-flag), which WG does it belong to - 6MAN or SNAC - and which group shall adopt it?

After the decision was made to have a separate draft, the draft content was reviewed by the SNAC WG.
The WGLC email was forwared to teh SNAC mailing list and a number of active SNAC participants expressed their support for advancing the draft.


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

No such review required.

7. If the document contains a YANG module, has the final version of the module
  been checked with any of the [recommended validation tools][4] 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 [RFC 8342][5]?

The document contains no YANG module.

8. Describe reviews and automated checks performed to validate sections of the
  final version of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code,
  BNF rules, MIB definitions, CBOR's CDDL, etc.

The document contains no such sections.

## Document Shepherd Checks

9. Based on the shepherd's review of the document, is it their opinion that this
  document is needed, clearly written, complete, correctly designed, and ready
  to be handed off to the responsible Area Director?

I believe that the document defines a key component of the SNAC framework, and, therefore, is very much needed.
The document is well-written and is ready to be advanced.

10. Several IETF Areas have assembled [lists of common issues that their
    reviewers encounter][6]. For which areas have such issues been identified
    and addressed? For which does this still need to happen in subsequent
    reviews?

I've reviewed the list of issues and the document. I do not believe the document contains any of those issues.


11. What type of RFC publication is being requested on the IETF stream ([Best
    Current Practice][12], [Proposed Standard, Internet Standard][13],
    [Informational, Experimental or Historic][14])? Why is this the proper type
    of RFC? Do all Datatracker state attributes correctly reflect this intent?

Proposed Standard.  This document defines a new Router Advertisement flag, and therefore needs to be a standard.

12. Have reasonable efforts been made to remind all authors of the intellectual
    property rights (IPR) disclosure obligations described in [BCP 79][7]? To
    the best of your knowledge, have all required disclosures been filed? If
    not, explain why. If yes, summarize any relevant discussion, including links
    to publicly-available messages when applicable.

The author is not aware of any IPR claims.

13. Has each author, editor, and contributor shown their willingness to be
    listed as such? If the total number of authors and editors on the front page
    is greater than five, please provide a justification.

The document has one author, who confirmed his willingness to be listed as such.

14. Document any remaining I-D nits in this document. Simply running the [idnits
    tool][8] is not enough; please review the ["Content Guidelines" on
    authors.ietf.org][15]. (Also note that the current idnits tool generates
    some incorrect warnings; a rewrite is underway.)

I do not see any remaining nits in the document.

15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the [IESG
    Statement on Normative and Informative References][16].

The document doesn't contain any informative references. It contains only 5 normative ones and, in my opinion, they all should be normative:

- RFC2119 and RFC8174 need to be normative as they concern normative language.
- RFC4861 needs to be normative as it defines the Router Advertisement format, and this document defines a bit in the RA.
- IANA-RA-FLAGS refers to the IANA registry the new flag is to allocated from, so it's also a normative reference.
- I-D.ietf-snac-simple defines the semantics of the flag, therefore ietf-snac-simple must be read to understand or implement the new RA flag, at least on the client side.

16. List any normative references that are not freely available to anyone. Did
    the community have sufficient access to review any such normative
    references?

There are no such references.

17. Are there any normative downward references (see [RFC 3967][9] and [BCP
    97][10]) that are not already listed in the [DOWNREF registry][17]? If so,
    list them.

No such references.

18. Are there normative references to documents that are not ready to be
    submitted to the IESG for publication or are otherwise in an unclear state?
    If so, what is the plan for their completion?

Yes, this document contains a normative reference to https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-snac-simple/

The authors of draft-ietf-snac-simple and the SNAC WG chairs believe that the document is progressing fast and is expected to be ready for the WGLC around IETF122.

The author of draft-ietf-6man-snac-router-ra-flag is aware that draft-ietf-6man-snac-router-ra-flag can not be published before draft-ietf-snac-simple.


19. Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? If
    so, does the Datatracker metadata correctly reflect this and are those RFCs
    listed on the title page, in the abstract, and discussed in the
    introduction? If not, explain why and point to the part of the document
    where the relationship of this document to these other RFCs is discussed.

No, publication of this document does not affect any existing RFCs.

20. 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 aspects of the document requiring IANA assignments are
    associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm
    that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm
    that each newly created IANA registry specifies its initial contents,
    allocations procedures, and a reasonable name (see [RFC 8126][11]).

- The document requires IANA to allocate a new flag from the  "IPv6 ND Router Advertisement flags" registry.
The registry is clearly identified and the reference to the registry is included as a normative one.

Actually an early allocation has been made already, so IANA is happy ;)

21. List any new IANA registries that require Designated Expert Review for
    future allocations. Are the instructions to the Designated Expert clear?
    Please include suggestions of designated experts, if appropriate.

There are no new IANA registries defined or referenced in this document.

[1]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/
[2]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4858.html
[3]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7942.html
[4]: https://wiki.ietf.org/group/ops/yang-review-tools
[5]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8342.html
[6]: https://wiki.ietf.org/group/iesg/ExpertTopics
[7]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp79
[8]: https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/
[9]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3967.html
[10]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp97
[11]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8126.html
[12]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-5
[13]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.1
[14]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.2
[15]: https://authors.ietf.org/en/content-guidelines-overview
[16]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/normative-informative-references/
[17]: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/downref/

# Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents

*This version is dated 4 July 2022.*

## Document History

1. Does the working group (WG) consensus represent the strong concurrence of a
  few individuals, with others being silent, or did it reach broad agreement?

The document has been extensivly discussed on the list and during 6MAN sessions for the last few IETFs.
It should be noted that the document just defines a single bit, while all details about sematnics of that bit are in scope for the SNAC WG.
So the support was expressed mostly by participants who are active in both areas (6man and snac), but it was a broad agreement between them that the document is useful (even cricial for SNAC) and shall be moved forward.


2. Was there controversy about particular points, or were there decisions where
  the consensus was particularly rough?

No, the content of the draft did not cause any controversy.
The topic of which group this document belongs (6man or SNAC) was discussed extensively (see #5 below).


3. Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If
  so, please summarize 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.

4. For protocol documents, are there existing implementations of the contents of
  the document? Have a significant number of potential implementers indicated
  plans to implement? Are any existing implementations reported somewhere,
  either in the document itself (as [RFC 7942][3] recommends) or elsewhere
  (where)?

The OpenThread project already implements this: https://github.com/openthread/openthread

The author believes that practically all Thread-based products (including Thread Border Routers in-market and in-development) incorporate the OpenThread implementation.

## Additional Reviews

5. Do the contents of this document closely interact with technologies in other
  IETF working groups or external organizations, and would it therefore benefit
  from their review? Have those reviews occurred? If yes, describe which
  reviews took place.

The sole purpose of this document is to request an RA flag, which will be used by SNAC routers. Semantics of the flag and how the flag is processed by SNAC routers are defined in draft-ietf-snac-simple, which belongs to the SNAC WG. So yes, this document closely interacts with SNAC.
Interaction of this draft with the SNAC was discussed extensively at IETF119 and on the mailing lists. In particular, both WGs (and their chairs) spent substential amoutn of time discussion:
- should the flag be defined in a dedicated draft or should it be a part of draft-ietf-snac-simple?
- if it's a separate draft (snac-router-ra-flag), which WG does it belong to - 6MAN or SNAC - and which group shall adopt it?

After the decision was made to have a separate draft, the draft content was reviewed by the SNAC WG.
The WGLC email was forwared to teh SNAC mailing list and a number of active SNAC participants expressed their support for advancing the draft.


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

No such review required.

7. If the document contains a YANG module, has the final version of the module
  been checked with any of the [recommended validation tools][4] 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 [RFC 8342][5]?

The document contains no YANG module.

8. Describe reviews and automated checks performed to validate sections of the
  final version of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code,
  BNF rules, MIB definitions, CBOR's CDDL, etc.

The document contains no such sections.

## Document Shepherd Checks

9. Based on the shepherd's review of the document, is it their opinion that this
  document is needed, clearly written, complete, correctly designed, and ready
  to be handed off to the responsible Area Director?

I believe that the document defines a key component of the SNAC framework, and, therefore, is very much needed.
The document is well-written and is ready to be advanced.

10. Several IETF Areas have assembled [lists of common issues that their
    reviewers encounter][6]. For which areas have such issues been identified
    and addressed? For which does this still need to happen in subsequent
    reviews?

I've reviewed the list of issues and the document. I do not believe the document contains any of those issues.


11. What type of RFC publication is being requested on the IETF stream ([Best
    Current Practice][12], [Proposed Standard, Internet Standard][13],
    [Informational, Experimental or Historic][14])? Why is this the proper type
    of RFC? Do all Datatracker state attributes correctly reflect this intent?

Proposed Standard.  This document defines a new Router Advertisement flag, and therefore needs to be a standard.

12. Have reasonable efforts been made to remind all authors of the intellectual
    property rights (IPR) disclosure obligations described in [BCP 79][7]? To
    the best of your knowledge, have all required disclosures been filed? If
    not, explain why. If yes, summarize any relevant discussion, including links
    to publicly-available messages when applicable.

The author is not aware of any IPR claims.

13. Has each author, editor, and contributor shown their willingness to be
    listed as such? If the total number of authors and editors on the front page
    is greater than five, please provide a justification.

The document has one author, who confirmed his willingness to be listed as such.

14. Document any remaining I-D nits in this document. Simply running the [idnits
    tool][8] is not enough; please review the ["Content Guidelines" on
    authors.ietf.org][15]. (Also note that the current idnits tool generates
    some incorrect warnings; a rewrite is underway.)

I do not see any remaining nits in the document.

15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the [IESG
    Statement on Normative and Informative References][16].

The document doesn't contain any informative references. It contains only 5 normative ones and, in my opinion, they all should be normative:
- RFC2119 and RFC8174 need to be normative as they concern normative language.
- RFC4861 needs to be normative as it defines the Router Advertisement format, and this document defines a bit in the RA.
- IANA-RA-FLAGS refers to the IANA registry the new flag is to allocated from, so it's also a normative reference.
- I-D.ietf-snac-simple defines the semantics of the flag, therefore ietf-snac-simple must be read to understand or implement the new RA flag, at least on the client side.

16. List any normative references that are not freely available to anyone. Did
    the community have sufficient access to review any such normative
    references?

There are no such references.

17. Are there any normative downward references (see [RFC 3967][9] and [BCP
    97][10]) that are not already listed in the [DOWNREF registry][17]? If so,
    list them.

No such references.

18. Are there normative references to documents that are not ready to be
    submitted to the IESG for publication or are otherwise in an unclear state?
    If so, what is the plan for their completion?

Yes, this document contains a normative reference to https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-snac-simple/

The authors of draft-ietf-snac-simple and the SNAC WG chairs believe that the document is progressing fast and is expected to be ready for the WGLC around IETF122.

The author of draft-ietf-6man-snac-router-ra-flag is aware that draft-ietf-6man-snac-router-ra-flag can not be published before draft-ietf-snac-simple.


19. Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? If
    so, does the Datatracker metadata correctly reflect this and are those RFCs
    listed on the title page, in the abstract, and discussed in the
    introduction? If not, explain why and point to the part of the document
    where the relationship of this document to these other RFCs is discussed.

No, publication of this document does not affect any existing RFCs.

20. 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 aspects of the document requiring IANA assignments are
    associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm
    that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm
    that each newly created IANA registry specifies its initial contents,
    allocations procedures, and a reasonable name (see [RFC 8126][11]).

- The document requires IANA to allocate a new flag from the  "IPv6 ND Router Advertisement flags" registry.
The registry is clearly identified and the reference to the registry is included as a normative one.

Actually an early allocation has been made already, so IANA is happy ;)

21. List any new IANA registries that require Designated Expert Review for
    future allocations. Are the instructions to the Designated Expert clear?
    Please include suggestions of designated experts, if appropriate.

There are no new IANA registries defined or referenced in this document.

[1]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/
[2]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4858.html
[3]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7942.html
[4]: https://wiki.ietf.org/group/ops/yang-review-tools
[5]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8342.html
[6]: https://wiki.ietf.org/group/iesg/ExpertTopics
[7]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp79
[8]: https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/
[9]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3967.html
[10]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp97
[11]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8126.html
[12]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-5
[13]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.1
[14]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.2
[15]: https://authors.ietf.org/en/content-guidelines-overview
[16]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/normative-informative-references/
[17]: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/downref/