Document Writeup, template from IESG area on ietf.org, dated 11 March 2015.
(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. This document specifies new access network
identifier options and sub-options and their correspondent
client/server behaviors in DHCPv4 and DHCPv6. The intended
type is indicated in the document 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:
Relevant content can frequently be found in the abstract
and/or introduction of the document. If not, this may be
an indication that there are deficiencies in the abstract
This document define new DHCPv4 and DHCPv6 options for access
network identification that is added by Client or Relay agent
in the DHCPv4 or DHCPv6 messages towards the server. This
information can be used to provide differentiated services
and policing of traffic based on the access network to which
a client is attached.
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?
This document was called draft-bhandari-dhc-access-network-identifier
prior to its adoption. There was unanimous support for it in favor of
adoption and none against), so this document was adopted in May
2013. There was interest in this work posts since its adoption.
There was never any opposition for this work.
This document went through a relevant long document development
period (10 months for individual document period, 21 month for WG
document period) due to the authors lack of the DHC background
expertise. The DHC expert, Bernie Volz, has joint in latest
version so that the maturity of this document can be reached.
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
This document went through multiple reviews by multiple WG
participants. The options, client's and server's behaviors are
clearly defined. I'm not aware of any existing implementations.
Who is the Document Shepherd? Who is the Responsible Area Director?
Sheng Jiang is the document shepherd.
Brian Haberman is the responsible 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.
I reviewed this document twice from only the DHC perspective for
-02 and -05 versions (and had other minor comments in between):
The issues raised in my reviews were promptly addressed by authors
in -06 version along with the comments from other DHC WG members. This
document is ready for publication in my opinion.
(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.
No. This document has been carefully reviewed by DHC WG.
(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.
There are no outstanding issues.
(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. The authors, Shwetha Bhandari, Sri Gundavelli, Mark Grayson,
Bernie Volz and Jouni Korhonen 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.
(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 was broad support for this document. It was reviewed by active WG
participants. All changes were mostly minor.
(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. There was unanimous support for this work and nobody raised any objections.
(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.
This document is now ID nits clean.
(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such
as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.
No MIB Doctor, media type, URI type or similar apply to this
(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?
No. 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
No. There are no downard 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? 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. This document does not update any existing RFCs. This draft
defines new options and extends, but not updates the base (RFC3315)
(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).
IANA is asked to assign 6 option codes for OPTION_ANI_ATT,
OPTION_ANI_NETWORK_NAME, OPTION_ANI_AP_NAME, OPTION_ANI_AP_BSSID,
OPTION_ANI_OPERATOR_ID and OPTION_ANI_OPERATOR_REALM; 6 sub-option
codes of DHCP Relay Agent Sub-Option for Access Technology Type
Sub-option, Access Network Name Sub-option, Access Point Name
Sub-option, Access Point BSSID Sub-option, Operator-Identifier
Sub-option and Operator-Realm Sub-option.
All the necessary information is in the IANA considerations document. It is
clear enough that the IANA will be able to implement it.
(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 such registry is requested in this document.
(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.
There are no such parts to the document.