Shepherd writeup
rfc7421-08

Write up for  "Analysis of the 64-bit Boundary in IPv6 Addressing"
                       <draft-ietf-6man-why64-04.txt>

(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

Back