Skip to main content

Shepherd writeup

(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. The text performs a gap analysis of IPv6 renumbering mechanisms.
A future text may be developed to describe BCP, which should improve as the
gaps are addressed, which could be done within the v6ops WG.

(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:
This document presents a review of mechanisms that could be used for IPv6 site
renumbering, analysing them for gaps in tools, protocols and procedures. In
undertaking the gap analysis, the document gives pointers to future work that
is required to improve renumbering operations, while it also lists issues which
it may not be possible to solve.

Working Group Summary:
Was there anything in WG process that is worth noting? For example, was there
controversy about particular points or were there decisions where the consensus
was particularly rough?

There is no significant controversy on the gap-analysis draft. Most issues were
teased out through review of the draft-ietf-6renum-enterpris draft, which was
recently sent to the IESG. One gap that was identified in that review, which
needs to be clarified in 7.3, is that appropriate monitoring of the renumbering
process is needed to ensure it completes as intended, e.g. to look for old
prefixes in use. There was some discussion as to whether "parameterised
ip-specific configuration" is the best phrase to use to talk about introducing
wider use of macros, etc. The phrase is a little clumsy, but no one as yet has
suggested anything better. There was some discussion on DNS tools in the
draft-ietf-6renum-enterprise review. In particular about wider deployment of
Dynamic DNS support. This illustrates that some gaps are due to lack of
deployment of tools that *could* be used, but are not due to that lack of
deployment. It may be useful to add a section listing the identified gaps more
explicitly; the work that has been identified to date is captured in
draft-carpenter-6renum-next-steps-00 (which is not intended to be taken
forward, rather be an inventory of work items to progress appropriately). There
was some discussion of router renumbering. RFC2894 is old (August 2000) and has
not as far as we're aware been used, and it is unlikely that it would ever be
used. A more appropriate approach may fall under 'Unified Configuration
Management' as described in 6.3. A small clarification may be beneficial.

Document Quality:
Are there existing implementations of the protocol? Have a significant number
of vendors indicated their plan to implement the specification? Are there any
reviewers that merit special mention as having done a thorough review, e.g.,
one that resulted in important changes or a conclusion that the document had no
substantive issues? If there was a MIB Doctor, Media Type or other expert
review, what was its course (briefly)? In the case of a Media Type review, on
what date was the request posted?

There has been a reasonable number of reviews for a document of this type,
which have led to it being in its fifth version since WG adoption. I have
notified the authors of a small number of grammatical errors, which will be
processed along with IESG comments.

Who is the Document Shepherd? Who is the Responsible Area Director?
Shepherd: Tim Chown
AD: Ron Bonica

(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.

I have read the final version of the document and believe that subject to those
points raised in the WG summary being addressed the document is ready for
publication. IESG comments on those points would be welcomed.

(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of
the reviews that have been performed?


(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.


(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.
The document completes a set of three IPv6 renumbering documents, the first two
of which have now been reviewed by the IESG.  This document was left to last in
cad IESG review identified new gaps - so far just one arose (about monitoring
the renumbering process).

(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?


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


(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 consensus
throughout the WG.

(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.)


(11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this document.
(See and the Internet-Drafts Checklist).
Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be thorough.

No nits reported by the checking tool.

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

Not applicable.

(13) Have all references within this document been identified as either
normative or informative?


(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 published 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

Not applicable, the document is Informational.

(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.


(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).

No IANA considerations.

(18) List any new IANA registries that require Expert Review for future
allocations. Provide any public guidance that the IESG would find useful in
selecting the IANA Experts for these new registries.

No IANA considerations.

(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.

Not applicable.