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 | |
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 |