Skip to main content

DHCPv6 Prefix-Length Hint Issues
draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-prefix-length-hint-issue-06

Revision differences

Document history

Date Rev. By Action
2017-05-24
06 (System) RFC Editor state changed to AUTH48-DONE from AUTH48
2017-05-04
06 (System) RFC Editor state changed to AUTH48 from RFC-EDITOR
2017-05-01
06 (System) RFC Editor state changed to RFC-EDITOR from EDIT
2017-03-31
06 (System) IANA Review state changed to Version Changed - Review Needed from IANA OK - No Actions Needed
2017-03-31
06 Tianxiang Li New version available: draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-prefix-length-hint-issue-06.txt
2017-03-31
06 (System) New version approved
2017-03-31
06 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Cong Liu , Yong Cui , Tianxiang Li
2017-03-31
06 Tianxiang Li Uploaded new revision
2017-03-22
05 (System) RFC Editor state changed to EDIT
2017-03-22
05 (System) IESG state changed to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent
2017-03-22
05 (System) Announcement was received by RFC Editor
2017-03-22
05 (System) IANA Action state changed to No IC
2017-03-22
05 Amy Vezza IESG state changed to Approved-announcement sent from Approved-announcement to be sent
2017-03-22
05 Amy Vezza IESG has approved the document
2017-03-22
05 Amy Vezza Closed "Approve" ballot
2017-03-21
05 Suresh Krishnan IESG state changed to Approved-announcement to be sent from Approved-announcement to be sent::Point Raised - writeup needed
2017-02-16
05 Cindy Morgan IESG state changed to Approved-announcement to be sent::Point Raised - writeup needed from IESG Evaluation
2017-02-16
05 Joel Jaeggli [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Joel Jaeggli
2017-02-16
05 Jari Arkko [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Jari Arkko
2017-02-16
05 Tero Kivinen Request for Last Call review by SECDIR Completed: Has Nits. Reviewer: Hilarie Orman.
2017-02-16
05 Benoît Claise
[Ballot comment]
From the draft:
  [RFC3633] is unclear about how the client and server should act in
  different situations involving the …
[Ballot comment]
From the draft:
  [RFC3633] is unclear about how the client and server should act in
  different situations involving the prefix-length hint.
From the shepherd write-up
  This document specifies information that is useful to DHCPv6 client
  and server implementers to support allowing clients to specify a
  prefix length hint when requested delegated prefixes. It clarifies
  this concept introduced in RFC 3633.

=> that implies an UPDATE, no?
Obviously, this document publication should go forward (so not a DISCUSS), but I would like to understand why this is not an update.

Editorial nit (by Sue Hares, part of her OPS DIR review):

Page 3 section 3.1 section under problem.  Second paragraph.  Second sentence

The best way to assure a completely new delegated prefix is to send a new IAID in the IA_PD.
IAID – abbreviation has not been indicated prior to this use
Old:/IAID/
New: /IAID (IA_PD unique identifier)/
2017-02-16
05 Benoît Claise [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Benoit Claise
2017-02-15
05 Spencer Dawkins [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Spencer Dawkins
2017-02-15
05 Ben Campbell [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Ben Campbell
2017-02-15
05 Alissa Cooper [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Alissa Cooper
2017-02-15
05 Terry Manderson [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Terry Manderson
2017-02-15
05 Susan Hares Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR Completed: Has Nits. Reviewer: Susan Hares.
2017-02-15
05 Mirja Kühlewind
[Ballot comment]
I think it would make sense if this doc updates RFC 3633 because someone who (newly) implements RFC 3633 should really also read …
[Ballot comment]
I think it would make sense if this doc updates RFC 3633 because someone who (newly) implements RFC 3633 should really also read this document and hance needs this pointer.

Also, I would move section 3.6 to the beginning but that doesn't really matter.
2017-02-15
05 Mirja Kühlewind [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Mirja Kühlewind
2017-02-14
05 Stephen Farrell [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Stephen Farrell
2017-02-14
05 Kathleen Moriarty
[Ballot comment]
I'm okay with the reasoning for the security considerations section, but think it might be good if a general reference for security of …
[Ballot comment]
I'm okay with the reasoning for the security considerations section, but think it might be good if a general reference for security of DHCP was listed as well.  Since an older RFC is referenced, any references from that one might be out-of-date.
2017-02-14
05 Kathleen Moriarty [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Kathleen Moriarty
2017-02-14
05 Deborah Brungard [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Deborah Brungard
2017-02-14
05 Alia Atlas [Ballot comment]
Thanks for a clear and well-written specification.
2017-02-14
05 Alia Atlas [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Alia Atlas
2017-02-14
05 Alvaro Retana [Ballot comment]
Please expand IA_PD on first use.
2017-02-14
05 Alvaro Retana [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Alvaro Retana
2017-02-11
05 Alexey Melnikov [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Alexey Melnikov
2017-02-10
05 Suresh Krishnan IESG state changed to IESG Evaluation from Waiting for Writeup
2017-02-10
05 Suresh Krishnan Ballot has been issued
2017-02-10
05 Suresh Krishnan [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Suresh Krishnan
2017-02-10
05 Suresh Krishnan Created "Approve" ballot
2017-02-10
05 Suresh Krishnan Ballot writeup was changed
2017-02-09
05 (System) IESG state changed to Waiting for Writeup from In Last Call
2017-02-02
05 (System) IANA Review state changed to IANA OK - No Actions Needed from IANA - Review Needed
2017-02-02
05 Sabrina Tanamal
(Via drafts-lastcall@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

The IANA Services Operator has reviewed draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-prefix-length-hint-issue-05.txt, which is currently in Last Call, and has the following comments:

We …
(Via drafts-lastcall@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

The IANA Services Operator has reviewed draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-prefix-length-hint-issue-05.txt, which is currently in Last Call, and has the following comments:

We understand that this document doesn't require any registry actions.

While it's often helpful for a document's IANA Considerations section to remain in place upon publication even if there are no actions, if the authors strongly prefer to remove it, we do not object.

If this assessment is not accurate, please respond as soon as possible.

Thank you,

Sabrina Tanamal
IANA Services Specialist
PTI
2017-02-01
05 Gunter Van de Velde Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR is assigned to Susan Hares
2017-02-01
05 Gunter Van de Velde Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR is assigned to Susan Hares
2017-01-29
05 Roni Even Request for Last Call review by GENART Completed: Almost Ready. Reviewer: Roni Even. Sent review to list.
2017-01-26
05 Tero Kivinen Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Hilarie Orman
2017-01-26
05 Tero Kivinen Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Hilarie Orman
2017-01-26
05 Jean Mahoney Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Roni Even
2017-01-26
05 Jean Mahoney Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Roni Even
2017-01-26
05 Amy Vezza IANA Review state changed to IANA - Review Needed
2017-01-26
05 Amy Vezza
The following Last Call announcement was sent out:

From: The IESG
To: "IETF-Announce"
CC: "Bernie Volz" , volz@cisco.com, dhc-chairs@ietf.org, suresh.krishnan@ericsson.com, dhcwg@ietf.org, …
The following Last Call announcement was sent out:

From: The IESG
To: "IETF-Announce"
CC: "Bernie Volz" , volz@cisco.com, dhc-chairs@ietf.org, suresh.krishnan@ericsson.com, dhcwg@ietf.org, draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-prefix-length-hint-issue@ietf.org
Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org
Sender:
Subject: Last Call:  (DHCPv6 Prefix Length Hint Issues) to Proposed Standard


The IESG has received a request from the Dynamic Host Configuration WG
(dhc) to consider the following document:
- 'DHCPv6 Prefix Length Hint Issues'
  as Proposed
Standard

The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the
ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2017-02-09. Exceptionally, comments may be
sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the
beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting.

Abstract


  DHCPv6 Prefix Delegation (RFC3633) allows a client to include a
  prefix-length hint value in the IA_PD option to indicate a preference
  for the size of the prefix to be delegated, but is unclear about how
  the client and server should act in different situations involving
  the prefix-length hint.  This document provides a summary of the
  existing problems with the prefix-length hint and guidance on what
  the client and server could do in different situations.




The file can be obtained via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-prefix-length-hint-issue/

IESG discussion can be tracked via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-prefix-length-hint-issue/ballot/


No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D.




2017-01-26
05 Amy Vezza IESG state changed to In Last Call from Last Call Requested
2017-01-26
05 Amy Vezza Last call announcement was changed
2017-01-25
05 Suresh Krishnan Placed on agenda for telechat - 2017-02-16
2017-01-25
05 Suresh Krishnan Last call was requested
2017-01-25
05 Suresh Krishnan Last call announcement was generated
2017-01-25
05 Suresh Krishnan Ballot approval text was generated
2017-01-25
05 Suresh Krishnan Ballot writeup was generated
2017-01-25
05 Suresh Krishnan IESG state changed to Last Call Requested from AD Evaluation::AD Followup
2017-01-25
05 (System) Sub state has been changed to AD Followup from Revised ID Needed
2017-01-25
05 Tianxiang Li New version available: draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-prefix-length-hint-issue-05.txt
2017-01-25
05 (System) New version approved
2017-01-25
05 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: "Tianxiang Li" , "Yong Cui" , "Cong Liu"
2017-01-25
05 Tianxiang Li Uploaded new revision
2017-01-18
04 Suresh Krishnan IESG state changed to AD Evaluation::Revised I-D Needed from AD Evaluation
2016-12-05
04 Suresh Krishnan IESG state changed to AD Evaluation from Publication Requested
2016-10-28
04 Bernie Volz
Write up for draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-prefix-length-hint-issue(-04).txt:


(1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard,
    Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? Why …
Write up for draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-prefix-length-hint-issue(-04).txt:


(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?

Standards Track. This is the proper type because this document
clarifies how clients and servers are to interact when clients
want to provide a hint as to the prefix length they desire to
use (clarifies text from RFC 3633).


(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 specifies information that is useful to DHCPv6 client
and server implementers to support allowing clients to specify a
prefix length hint when requested delegated prefixes. It clarifies
this concept introduced in RFC 3633.

Working Group Summary:

This document clarifies how clients and servers should interact to
support the prefix length hint concept introduced by RFC 3633.

Document Quality:

This document has had thorough reviews by many interested and
knowledgeable folks (beyond those mentioned in the acknowledgements
section). There were no significant points of difficulty or
controversy with the contents of the document.

Personnel:

Bernie Volz is the document shepherd. Suresh Krishnan is the
current 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 several times, and submitted editorial
and technical suggestions to the authors, which they implemented. I
believe it is ready for publication.


(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.

No.


(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.


(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 I have confirmed with co-authors.


(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 disclosures have been filed.


(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.


(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.

There are none.


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

N/A


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

Yes (there are only 4 normative references; no 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.


(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.

No.


(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.


(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).

There are no IANA actions required.


(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.

There are no new IANA registries requested by this draft.


(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.
2016-10-28
04 Bernie Volz Responsible AD changed to Suresh Krishnan
2016-10-28
04 Bernie Volz IETF WG state changed to Submitted to IESG for Publication from WG Consensus: Waiting for Write-Up
2016-10-28
04 Bernie Volz IESG state changed to Publication Requested
2016-10-28
04 Bernie Volz IESG process started in state Publication Requested
2016-10-28
04 Bernie Volz Changed document writeup
2016-10-17
04 Bernie Volz Tag Revised I-D Needed - Issue raised by WGLC cleared.
2016-10-17
04 Bernie Volz Changed document writeup
2016-10-17
04 Tianxiang Li New version available: draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-prefix-length-hint-issue-04.txt
2016-10-17
04 (System) New version approved
2016-10-17
03 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: "Tianxiang Li" , "Yong Cui" , "Cong Liu"
2016-10-17
03 Tianxiang Li Uploaded new revision
2016-10-14
03 Bernie Volz
Given the positive, and no negative, support in response to the WGLC and considering the past history of this work, Tomek and Bernie feel it …
Given the positive, and no negative, support in response to the WGLC and considering the past history of this work, Tomek and Bernie feel it has passed the WGLC and should advance.

The authors are requested to address the nits (see https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dhcwg/current/msg17684.html).

Once the update is published, as shepherd, Bernie will finalize the shepherd document and send the document on.
2016-10-14
03 Bernie Volz Tag Revised I-D Needed - Issue raised by WGLC set.
2016-10-14
03 Bernie Volz IETF WG state changed to WG Consensus: Waiting for Write-Up from In WG Last Call
2016-09-26
03 Bernie Volz
Hi all,

This message starts the DHC Working Group Last Call to advance draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-prefix-length-hint-issue-03, DHCPv6 Prefix Length Hint Issues. This document¹s intended status is …
Hi all,

This message starts the DHC Working Group Last Call to advance draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-prefix-length-hint-issue-03, DHCPv6 Prefix Length Hint Issues. This document¹s intended status is Proposed Standard. At present, there is no IPR file against this document.

Please send your comments by October 10, 2016. If you do not feel this  document should advance, please state your reasons why.

Bernie Volz is the assigned shepherd.

- Tomek & Bernie
2016-09-26
03 Bernie Volz IETF WG state changed to In WG Last Call from WG Document
2016-07-26
03 Tianxiang Li New version available: draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-prefix-length-hint-issue-03.txt
2016-06-28
02 Bernie Volz Added to session: IETF-96: dhc  Wed-1000
2016-06-22
02 Tomek Mrugalski Notification list changed to "Bernie Volz" <volz@cisco.com>
2016-06-22
02 Tomek Mrugalski Document shepherd changed to Bernie Volz
2016-06-22
02 Bernie Volz Changed consensus to Yes from Unknown
2016-06-22
02 Bernie Volz Intended Status changed to Proposed Standard from Informational
2016-06-19
02 Tianxiang Li New version available: draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-prefix-length-hint-issue-02.txt
2016-04-28
01 Tianxiang Li New version available: draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-prefix-length-hint-issue-01.txt
2016-04-21
00 Bernie Volz Intended Status changed to Informational from None
2016-03-14
00 Bernie Volz Added to session: IETF-95: dhc  Thu-1400
2016-01-14
00 Tomek Mrugalski This document now replaces draft-cui-dhc-dhcpv6-prefix-length-hint-issue instead of None
2016-01-14
00 Tianxiang Li New version available: draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-prefix-length-hint-issue-00.txt