Write up for draft-ietf-dhcpv6-failover-requirements:
(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. This is the proper type because this document specifies
requirements for a failover protocol for DHCPv6. It does not define the
protocol itself. This is indicated in the header (Intended status).
(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:
This document outlines the requirements for DHCPv6 failover, enumerates
related problems, and discusses the proposed scope of work to be
conducted. This document does not define a DHCPv6 failover protocol.
Working Group Summary:
The need for a DHCPv6 failover protocol had been discussed by the WG
ever since RFC 3315 was published. After some discussion on how to
approach this work given the lack of progress for the DHCPv4 draft
(draft-ietf-dhc-failover), work was begun in June 2011 on the first
of a possible series of documents. And adopted by the WG in October
2011. The document has good support from key individuals (those that
worked on or implemented the DHCPv4 failover draft), but does lack
broad support - though no one raised any objection to the work.
The document builds on earlier DHCPv4 work (draft-ietf-dhc-failover).
The document has had a thorough review by a small number of very
interested and knowledgable folks (mentioned in the acknowledgements
section). There were no significant points of difficulty or
controversy, primarily as this work builds on earlier DHCPv4 work.
Bernie Volz is the document shepherd. Ted Lemon 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 read the document thoroughly, and submitted quite a few editorial
suggestions to the authors, which they implemented. The differences
between the -03 and -05 versions of the document reflect this review.
(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or
breadth of the reviews that have been performed?
No, the document has had a good deal of careful review.
(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.
This is strictly a DHCP document, and has had sufficient review from
(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.
I think the document is good as written, and serves a useful purpose
and will be useful for future work on DHCPv6 failover.
(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 did confirm that they are not aware of any IPR.
(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If
so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR
(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 strong consensus behind this document and in particular from
very active WG participants (i.e. "DHCP experts").
(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
No, and nobody's indicated that they were against the WGLC or had
any issues with the document advancing.
(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.
The document passes idnits with no errors and review using the
checklist did not turn up any issues.
(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review
criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type
The document contains nothing like 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
No, all the normative references are to 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.
(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
(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
I reviewed the IANA Considerations section and it is fine and clear -
there are no IANA actions needed.
(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
(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.