PROTO for draft-ietf-babel-v4viav6-06
(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?
Proposed Standard as indicated in the title page header. This is
the appropriate type as this document since it updates Proposed
Standard RFC 8966.
(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 updats the Babel routing protocol to support
annoncing routes to an IPv4 prefix with an IPv6 next-hop. This
makes it possible for IPv4 traffic to flow through interfaces that
have not been assigned an IPv4 address. Since an IPv6 next hop can
use an IPv6 link-local address that is autonomously configured, the
use of such routes enables a mode of operation where the network
core has no statically assigned IP addresses.
Working Group Summary:
The Babel WG was enthusiastic about this update to the Babel
protocol. Things were moving along when the group hit the speed
bump of what IPv4 source address to use when a v4-via-v6 Babel
router generates a v4 ICMP message. It took a little while to
resolve that resulting in the current specification whch includes
use of the IPv4 dummy address if no other source of an IPv4 address
is available on the router. Based on the mailing list and WG
meetings, there is strong consensus for the draft.
Document Quality:
This a reasonably short document of high quality. v4-via-v6 has
been implemented in babeld but not merged into the mainline source
yet. It has not yet been implemented in BIRD but the maintainer
has indicated their intention to do so. (The use of the IPv4 dummy
address when generating a v4 packt with no v4 addresses configured
has been submitted for inclusion in the Linux kernel.)
Personnel:
Who is the Document Shepherd? Who is the Responsible Area Director?
Document Shepherd: Donald Eastlake
Area Director: Martin Vigoureux
(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.
See
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/babel/5HEAHOesxnerhhq9rZcy92hjfwI/
(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 such review required.
(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 special 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.
The author has posted an IPR declaration. See
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/babel/oLJIQejTqRDpJ2zJYGHiPzIZYnc/
(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 disclosure has been filed for this document.
(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 a solid strong consensus for this document among tha
active Babel participants,
(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.
Things found by the nits checker:
- Non-RFC6890-compliant IPv4 addresses. This is OK, it is a
reference to the already assigned "dummy" IPv4 address 192.0.0.8.
- "Obsolete" Informatial reference to RFC 5549. The reference is
used to show the prior inspiration for the v4-via-v6 idea came
from this specific RFC; that point would be lost if the reference
were updated.
- The nits checker seems to misparse the header and complains about
the date of the document being in the future but it must be
checking the expires date.
(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review
criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI
type reviews.
No such formal review is required for this document.
(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?
No.
(15) Are there downward normative references references (see RFC
3967)?
There are no downward normative references.
(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?
This document does not change the status of any other RFC.
(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
8126).
IANA Considerations just documents the assignment of the value 4
for the v4-via-v6 Babel Address Encoding (AE). This value was
approved by Expert Review and is used in existing implementations.
(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.
This document does not create any IANA registries.
(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, YANG modules,
etc.
No such formal reviews required.
(20) If the document contains a YANG module, has the module been
checked with any of the recommended validation tools
(https://trac.ietf.org/trac/ops/wiki/yang-review-tools) 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 RFC8342?
This document contains no YANG.