(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?
This memo is intended for publication as Proposed Standard. It UPDATES
another Standards Track document (RFC 4291). This is reflected on the
title page.
(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:
The IPv6 addressing architecture includes a unicast interface
identifier that is used in the creation of many IPv6 addresses.
Interface identifiers are formed by a variety of methods. This
document clarifies that the bits in an interface identifier have no
generic meaning and that the identifier should be treated as an
opaque value. In particular, RFC 4291 defines a method by which the
Universal and Group bits of an IEEE link-layer address are mapped
into an IPv6 unicast interface identifier. This document clarifies
that those two bits are significant only in interface identifiers
that are derived from an IEEE link-layer address, and updates RFC
4291 accordingly.
Working Group Summary:
This document is the product of the IPv6 WG. The final version
reflects strong WG consensus.
Document Quality:
In the 6man working group, the chairs do a detailed review
and also ask one or two volunteers (or hand picked experts) to
do a thorough review of documents before the are being
advanced to the IESG.
Fernando Gont performed a detailed review of the final version.
Personnel:
Who is the Document Shepherd? Who is the Responsible Area Director?
Ole Troan is the document Shepherd. Brian Haberman is the Area Director.
(3) Briefly describe the review of this document that was performed by
the Document Shepherd. If this version of the document is not ready
for publication, please explain why the document is being forwarded to
the IESG.
The shepherd has reviewed the final version of the document, as well
as detailed reviews during working group adoption and working group
last calls of the 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.
Eric Gray (the IEEE liaison) reviewed the document and also asked
for opinions from IEEE 802.
(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.
None.
(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.
(9) How solid is the WG consensus behind this document? Does it
represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others
being silent, or does the WG as a whole understand and agree with it?
There is strong WG 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 found.
(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review
criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.
The document has been reviewed by the 6man WG.
(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 (see RFC 3967)? If so,
list these downward references to support the Area Director in the
Last Call procedure.
No.
(16) Will publication of this document change the status of any
existing RFCs? Are those RFCs listed on the title page header, listed
in the abstract, and discussed in the introduction? If the RFCs are
not listed in the Abstract and Introduction, explain why, and point to
the part of the document where the relationship of this document to
the other RFCs is discussed. If this information is not in the
document, explain why the WG considers it unnecessary.
Yes. This document updates RFC 2460. This is mentioned in the header,
abstract and body of the text.
(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).
All confirmed.
(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.
Ran nit-checker