Analysis of the 64-bit Boundary in IPv6 Addressing
draft-ietf-6man-why64-08
Revision differences
Document history
Date | Rev. | By | Action |
---|---|---|---|
2015-01-12
|
08 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to AUTH48-DONE from AUTH48 |
2014-12-22
|
08 | Robert Sparks | Notification list changed to 6man-chairs@tools.ietf.org, draft-ietf-6man-why64@tools.ietf.org, "Robert M. Hinden" <bob.hinden@gmail.com> from 6man-chairs@tools.ietf.org, draft-ietf-6man-why64@tools.ietf.org |
2014-12-22
|
08 | Robert Sparks | Document shepherd changed to Robert M. Hinden |
2014-12-19
|
08 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to AUTH48 from RFC-EDITOR |
2014-12-02
|
08 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to RFC-EDITOR from EDIT |
2014-11-03
|
08 | Cindy Morgan | IESG state changed to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent |
2014-11-03
|
08 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to EDIT |
2014-11-03
|
08 | (System) | Announcement was received by RFC Editor |
2014-11-03
|
08 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to No IC |
2014-11-03
|
08 | Amy Vezza | IESG state changed to Approved-announcement sent from Approved-announcement to be sent::Point Raised - writeup needed |
2014-11-03
|
08 | Amy Vezza | IESG has approved the document |
2014-11-03
|
08 | Amy Vezza | Closed "Approve" ballot |
2014-10-31
|
08 | Brian Haberman | Ballot writeup was changed |
2014-10-31
|
08 | Brian Haberman | Ballot approval text was generated |
2014-10-31
|
08 | Naveen Khan | New revision available |
2014-10-30
|
07 | Cindy Morgan | IESG state changed to Approved-announcement to be sent::Point Raised - writeup needed from IESG Evaluation |
2014-10-30
|
07 | Jari Arkko | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Jari Arkko |
2014-10-30
|
07 | Joel Jaeggli | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Joel Jaeggli |
2014-10-29
|
07 | Amanda Baber | IANA Review state changed to IANA OK - No Actions Needed from Version Changed - Review Needed |
2014-10-29
|
07 | Ted Lemon | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Ted Lemon |
2014-10-29
|
07 | Richard Barnes | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Richard Barnes |
2014-10-29
|
07 | Alissa Cooper | [Ballot comment] This is a nice document, thanks for taking the time to write it. = Section 1 = "The bits in the IID have … [Ballot comment] This is a nice document, thanks for taking the time to write it. = Section 1 = "The bits in the IID have no meaning and the entire identifier should be treated as an opaque value [RFC7136]." I understand what this means based on RFC7136, but it seems like it would be a little more clear to re-use the language from that document directly, e.g., "The bits in the IID may have significance only in the process of deriving the IID and once it is derived the entire identifier should be treated as an opaque value [RFC7136]." = Section 4.5 = This is probably not worth mentioning in the draft, but I'll write it down since the thought occurred to me: it's conceivable to argue that there could be a privacy benefit of shortening the IID, if it became so short that a hardware address could not be embedded in it. This benefit is quite obviously outweighed by the drawbacks you already describe in this section I think, but just food for thought. |
2014-10-29
|
07 | Alissa Cooper | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Alissa Cooper |
2014-10-29
|
07 | Martin Stiemerling | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Martin Stiemerling |
2014-10-29
|
07 | Barry Leiba | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Barry Leiba |
2014-10-29
|
07 | Kathleen Moriarty | [Ballot comment] The SecDir review looks good, thank you for your work on the draft. https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/secdir/current/msg05118.html |
2014-10-29
|
07 | Kathleen Moriarty | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Kathleen Moriarty |
2014-10-29
|
07 | Benoît Claise | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Benoit Claise |
2014-10-29
|
07 | Adrian Farrel | |
2014-10-29
|
07 | Adrian Farrel | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Adrian Farrel |
2014-10-27
|
07 | Alia Atlas | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Alia Atlas |
2014-10-23
|
07 | Robert Sparks | Request for Telechat review by GENART Completed: Ready. Reviewer: Robert Sparks. |
2014-10-23
|
07 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Telechat review by GENART is assigned to Robert Sparks |
2014-10-23
|
07 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Telechat review by GENART is assigned to Robert Sparks |
2014-10-20
|
07 | Brian Haberman | Ballot approval text was generated |
2014-10-19
|
07 | Brian Carpenter | IANA Review state changed to Version Changed - Review Needed from IANA OK - No Actions Needed |
2014-10-19
|
07 | Brian Carpenter | New version available: draft-ietf-6man-why64-07.txt |
2014-10-14
|
06 | Robert Sparks | Request for Telechat review by GENART Completed: Ready. Reviewer: Robert Sparks. |
2014-10-13
|
06 | Brian Haberman | Removed telechat returning item indication |
2014-10-13
|
06 | Brian Haberman | Telechat date has been changed to 2014-10-30 from 2014-10-16 |
2014-10-08
|
06 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Telechat review by GENART is assigned to Robert Sparks |
2014-10-08
|
06 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Telechat review by GENART is assigned to Robert Sparks |
2014-10-02
|
06 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR Completed: Ready. Reviewer: Melinda Shore. |
2014-10-02
|
06 | (System) | IANA Review state changed to IANA OK - No Actions Needed from Version Changed - Review Needed |
2014-10-02
|
06 | Brian Haberman | Placed on agenda for telechat - 2014-10-16 |
2014-10-02
|
06 | Brian Haberman | IESG state changed to IESG Evaluation from Waiting for AD Go-Ahead |
2014-10-02
|
06 | Brian Haberman | Ballot has been issued |
2014-10-02
|
06 | Brian Haberman | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Brian Haberman |
2014-10-02
|
06 | Brian Haberman | Created "Approve" ballot |
2014-10-02
|
06 | Brian Haberman | Ballot writeup was changed |
2014-10-02
|
06 | Brian Haberman | Changed consensus to Yes from Unknown |
2014-10-02
|
06 | Brian Haberman | IESG state changed to Waiting for AD Go-Ahead from Waiting for Writeup::AD Followup |
2014-10-01
|
06 | (System) | Sub state has been changed to AD Followup from Revised ID Needed |
2014-10-01
|
06 | Brian Carpenter | IANA Review state changed to Version Changed - Review Needed from IANA OK - No Actions Needed |
2014-10-01
|
06 | Brian Carpenter | New version available: draft-ietf-6man-why64-06.txt |
2014-09-30
|
05 | Brian Haberman | IESG state changed to Waiting for Writeup::Revised I-D Needed from Waiting for Writeup |
2014-09-30
|
05 | (System) | IESG state changed to Waiting for Writeup from In Last Call |
2014-09-29
|
05 | Gunter Van de Velde | Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR Completed: Ready. Reviewer: Ron Bonica. |
2014-09-29
|
05 | Robert Sparks | Request for Last Call review by GENART Completed: Ready. Reviewer: Robert Sparks. |
2014-09-24
|
05 | (System) | IANA Review state changed to IANA OK - No Actions Needed from IANA - Review Needed |
2014-09-24
|
05 | Amanda Baber | IESG/Authors/WG Chairs: IANA has reviewed draft-ietf-6man-why64-05, which is currently in Last Call, and has the following comments: We understand that this document doesn't require … IESG/Authors/WG Chairs: IANA has reviewed draft-ietf-6man-why64-05, which is currently in Last Call, and has the following comments: We understand that this document doesn't require any IANA actions. While it is helpful for the IANA Considerations section of the document to remain in place upon publication, if the authors prefer to remove it, IANA doesn't object. If this assessment is not accurate, please respond as soon as possible. |
2014-09-23
|
05 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Melinda Shore |
2014-09-23
|
05 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Melinda Shore |
2014-09-23
|
05 | Tero Kivinen | Assignment of request for Last Call review by SECDIR to Adam Montville was rejected |
2014-09-19
|
05 | Gunter Van de Velde | Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR is assigned to Ron Bonica |
2014-09-19
|
05 | Gunter Van de Velde | Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR is assigned to Ron Bonica |
2014-09-18
|
05 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Robert Sparks |
2014-09-18
|
05 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Robert Sparks |
2014-09-18
|
05 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Adam Montville |
2014-09-18
|
05 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Adam Montville |
2014-09-16
|
05 | Amy Vezza | IANA Review state changed to IANA - Review Needed |
2014-09-16
|
05 | Amy Vezza | The following Last Call announcement was sent out: From: The IESG To: IETF-Announce CC: Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org Sender: Subject: Last Call: (Analysis of the 64-bit Boundary … The following Last Call announcement was sent out: From: The IESG To: IETF-Announce CC: Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org Sender: Subject: Last Call: (Analysis of the 64-bit Boundary in IPv6 Addressing) to Informational RFC The IESG has received a request from the IPv6 Maintenance WG (6man) to consider the following document: - 'Analysis of the 64-bit Boundary in IPv6 Addressing' as Informational RFC The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2014-09-30. 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 The IPv6 unicast addressing format includes a separation between the prefix used to route packets to a subnet and the interface identifier used to specify a given interface connected to that subnet. Currently the interface identifier is defined as 64 bits long for almost every case, leaving 64 bits for the subnet prefix. This document describes the advantages of this fixed boundary and analyses the issues that would be involved in treating it as a variable boundary. The file can be obtained via http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-6man-why64/ IESG discussion can be tracked via http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-6man-why64/ballot/ No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D. |
2014-09-16
|
05 | Amy Vezza | IESG state changed to In Last Call from Last Call Requested |
2014-09-16
|
05 | Brian Haberman | Last call was requested |
2014-09-16
|
05 | Brian Haberman | Last call announcement was generated |
2014-09-16
|
05 | Brian Haberman | Ballot approval text was generated |
2014-09-16
|
05 | Brian Haberman | Ballot writeup was generated |
2014-09-16
|
05 | Brian Haberman | IESG state changed to Last Call Requested from AD Evaluation::AD Followup |
2014-09-15
|
05 | (System) | Sub state has been changed to AD Followup from Revised ID Needed |
2014-09-15
|
05 | Brian Carpenter | New version available: draft-ietf-6man-why64-05.txt |
2014-09-15
|
04 | Brian Haberman | IESG state changed to AD Evaluation::Revised I-D Needed from AD Evaluation |
2014-09-11
|
04 | Brian Haberman | IESG state changed to AD Evaluation from Publication Requested |
2014-09-10
|
04 | Bob Hinden | Write up for "Analysis of the 64-bit Boundary in IPv6 Addressing" (1) What type … Write up for "Analysis of the 64-bit Boundary in IPv6 Addressing" (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? Informational, as indicated in the header. (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 unicast addressing format includes a separation between the prefix used to route packets to a subnet and the interface identifier used to specify a given interface connected to that subnet. Currently the interface identifier is defined as 64 bits long for almost every case, leaving 64 bits for the subnet prefix. This document describes the advantages of this fixed boundary and analyses the issues that would be involved in treating it as a variable boundary. Working Group Summary: This document generated a very active discussion on the mailing list and in face to face discussions. There is a strong consensus to publish it as an Informational RFC. Document Quality: The document had strong support in the working group and has undergone three detailed reviews. It is ready for publication. Personnel: Bob Hinden is the Document Shepherd Brian Haberman is the Responsable 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. Mark Smith, Steven Blake and Ole Troan did reviews of the document that resulted in several improvements. The document is ready for publication. (4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed? No. (5) Do portions of the document need review from a particular or from broader perspective, e.g., security, operational complexity, AAA, DNS, DHCP, XML, or internationalization? If so, describe the review that took place. No. (6) Describe any specific concerns or issues that the Document Shepherd has with this document that the Responsible Area Director and/or the IESG should be aware of? For example, perhaps he or she is uncomfortable with certain parts of the document, or has concerns whether there really is a need for it. In any event, if the WG has discussed those issues and has indicated that it still wishes to advance the document, detail those concerns here. 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? Each author has confirmed this. (8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures. No IPR disclosures have been filed. (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? Strong and broad consensus in the working group. (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. No serious issues. There is a informational reference to an expired draft and one draft has a newer version, the RFC-Editor can resolve these. (12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews. N/A (13) Have all references within this document been identified as either normative or informative? Yes (14) Are there normative references to documents that are not ready for advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state? If such normative references exist, what is the plan for their completion? All Normative references are RFCs. (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. N/A. This draft is meant for Informational status. (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. No other RFCs are changed. (17) Describe the Document Shepherd's review of the IANA considerations section, especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the document. Confirm that all protocol extensions that the document makes are associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm that newly created IANA registries include a detailed specification of the initial contents for the registry, that allocations procedures for future registrations are defined, and a reasonable name for the new registry has been suggested (see RFC 5226). This document requests no action by IANA. (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. N/A (19) Describe reviews and automated checks performed by the Document Shepherd to validate sections of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc. N/A |
2014-09-10
|
04 | Bob Hinden | State Change Notice email list changed to 6man-chairs@tools.ietf.org, draft-ietf-6man-why64@tools.ietf.org |
2014-09-10
|
04 | Bob Hinden | Responsible AD changed to Brian Haberman |
2014-09-10
|
04 | Bob Hinden | IETF WG state changed to Submitted to IESG for Publication from WG Consensus: Waiting for Write-Up |
2014-09-10
|
04 | Bob Hinden | IESG state changed to Publication Requested |
2014-09-10
|
04 | Bob Hinden | IESG process started in state Publication Requested |
2014-09-10
|
04 | Bob Hinden | Changed document writeup |
2014-09-09
|
04 | Brian Carpenter | New version available: draft-ietf-6man-why64-04.txt |
2014-09-04
|
03 | Bob Hinden | Document shepherd changed to Robert M. Hinden |
2014-09-04
|
03 | Bob Hinden | Tag Revised I-D Needed - Issue raised by WG cleared. |
2014-09-04
|
03 | Bob Hinden | IETF WG state changed to WG Consensus: Waiting for Write-Up from In WG Last Call |
2014-08-26
|
03 | Brian Carpenter | New version available: draft-ietf-6man-why64-03.txt |
2014-08-15
|
02 | Brian Carpenter | New version available: draft-ietf-6man-why64-02.txt |
2014-08-06
|
01 | Ole Trøan | Document shepherd changed to Ole Troan |
2014-08-04
|
01 | Ole Trøan | Tag Revised I-D Needed - Issue raised by WG set. |
2014-07-23
|
01 | Ole Trøan | IETF WG state changed to In WG Last Call from WG Document |
2014-06-02
|
01 | Ole Trøan | Intended Status changed to Informational from None |
2014-05-07
|
01 | Brian Carpenter | New version available: draft-ietf-6man-why64-01.txt |
2014-04-23
|
00 | Ole Trøan | This document now replaces draft-carpenter-6man-why64 instead of None |
2014-04-11
|
00 | Brian Carpenter | New version available: draft-ietf-6man-why64-00.txt |