Skip to main content

Shepherd writeup

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: 

Technical Summary: 

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.

Document Quality: 

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
DHCP experts. 

(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 
    publicly available.) 

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 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 
    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). 

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.