Modification to Default Values of SOL_MAX_RT and INF_MAX_RT
draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-solmaxrt-update-05

[Ballot discuss]
This is going to be the easiest DISCUSS that Ralph's ever had to deal with:
In the second OLD/NEW pair in Section 3, there's a typo in the NEW: it should be "INF_MAX_RT".

[Ballot discuss]
A very minor Discuss that should be easy to resolve.

I believe this document should include text that describes the behaviour
of a legacy client on receiving one of the new options. That behaviour
may be described through a pointer to an existing document.

It will also be necessary to describe whether the server notices or
cares if it attempts to use one of these options and the client will not
handle the option (because the option has a bad value, or because the
client does not understand the option).

There are some changes from the gen-art, secdir and opsdir reviews that need to be folded into a new version of the document, but the document has IETF consensus and will be ready for review once those changes are folded in.

IESG/Authors/WG Chairs/ADs:

IANA has reviewed draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-solmaxrt-update-03.  Authors should review the comments and/or questions below.  Please report any inaccuracies and respond to any questions as soon as possible.

We received the following comments/questions from the IANA's reviewer:

IANA has a question about the IANA Actions requested in this document.

IANA understands that, upon approval of this document, there are one action which IANA must complete.

First, in the DHCP Option Codes subregistry of the Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol for IPv6 (DHCPv6) registry located at:

http://www.iana.org/assignments/dhcpv6-parameters

the following option codes will be added to the registry as follows:

Value: [ TBD-at-registration ]
Description: OPTION_SOL_MAX_RT
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

Value: [ TBD-at-registration ]
Description: OPTION_INF_MAX_RT
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

IANA Question -> The DHCP Option Codes subregistry is managed through
Expert Review as defined in RFC 5226.  Has the request for
the registration of these option codes been reviewed by the registry
expert?  Ted, are you approving these as you are also the responsible
AD?

IANA understands that these are the only actions required to be
completed upon approval of this document.

Note:  The actions requested in this document will not be completed
until the document has been approved for publication as an RFC.
This message is only to confirm what actions will be performed.

The following Last Call announcement was sent out:

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC:
Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org
Sender:
Subject: Last Call:  (Modification to Default Values of SOL_MAX_RT and INF_MAX_RT) to Proposed Standard


The IESG has received a request from the Dynamic Host Configuration WG
(dhc) to consider the following document:
- 'Modification to Default Values of SOL_MAX_RT and INF_MAX_RT'
  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 2013-09-03. 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


  This document updates RFC 3315 by redefining the default values for
  SOL_MAX_RT and INF_MAX_RT, and defining options through which a
  DHCPv6 server can override the client's default value for SOL_MAX_RT
  and INF_MAX_RT with a new value.




The file can be obtained via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-solmaxrt-update/

IESG discussion can be tracked via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-solmaxrt-update/ballot/


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

Oops, actually the previous comment was intended for another document; this one only requires a minor tweak to address a comment that was given prior to last call, so no new WGLC is expected or required for this document.

Document Writeup for draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-solmaxrt-update-02

As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document
Shepherd Write-Up.

Changes are expected over time. This version is dated 24 February 2012.

(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 updates two timers in DHCPv6
  protocol and define new options, whis requires standards track.
  The intended type is indicated in the 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:

Technical Summary

  This document updates RFC 3315 by redefining the default values for
  SOL_MAX_RT and INF_MAX_RT, and defining options through which a
  DHCPv6 server can override the client's default value for SOL_MAX_RT
  and INF_MAX_RT with a new value.

Working Group Summary

  This document was called draft-droms-dhc-dhcpv6-solmaxrt-update
  before it was quickly adopted. There was never any controversy
  regarding usefulness of this work. There was never any oposition
  or alternatives to this work. WGLC passed with couple technical
  improvements suggested. This work was requested by v6ops WG.
  Several of the folks voicing their support during WGLC are not
  active in DHC, so I assume that they are form v6ops. In my opinion
  this proposal has concensus to move forward in both dhc and v6ops.

Document Quality

  There are no existing implementations, but this work is expected
  to be implemented quickly as it has strong support from v6ops WG
  (that need it for their CPE requirements bis aka RFC6204bis).
  No external requirements are needed as this work is purely DHCPv6
  extension. This draft was reviewed and extensively discussed during
  IETF meetings and on the mailing list. There was a total of
  139 mails regarding SOLMAXRT update posted to the ML.

Personnel

  Who is the Document Shepherd? Who is the Responsible Area
  Director?

  Tomek Mrugalski 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 did thoroughly review this document more than once. My latests
  review comments are here:
  http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dhcwg/current/msg14450.html
  A lengthy discussion followed and all my concerns were addressed.

(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or
breadth of the reviews that have been performed?

  Not at the slightest. The lengthy discussion (139 mails) included
  comments from Ralph Droms (draft author, but also DHCPv4 protocol
  author and DHCPv6 co-author), Ted Lemon (current AD, former DHC
  chair), current DHC chairs and many DHCP experts.

(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 such review was needed. There is on going process to create DHCP
  Directorate, but the directorate does not exist yet. Nevertheless,
  this draft is now compliant with the primary document that will be
  used by the directorate: draft-ietf-dhc-option-guidelines.

(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 have no concerns about this draft. My previous concerns (about
  possible attack vectors, i.e. setting SOLMAXRT to 1 to create DDOS or
  to 0xffffffff to force clients to count to infinity) were fully
  addressed in -02 version.

(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.

  There are no IPR disclosed so far. Ralph Droms, the sole author,
  confirmed in writing that he is not aware of any outstanding,
  undisclosed IPRs.

(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document?
If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR
disclosures.

  No.

(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?

  It has very strong concensus for this work going forward. Besides
  the regular DHC experts, during WGLC thare was a number of comments
  received from people from v6ops who typically are not active in DHC.
  That only emphasizes both internal (DHC) and external (v6ops)
  support for this work.

(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.

  This document is idnits clean.

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

  No such formal review is needed. This document is compliant with
  draft-ietf-dhc-option-guidelines-12.

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

  Yes.

(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 to published RFC documents only.

(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.

  This document updates base DHCPv6 spec (RFC3315). That fact is
  clearly stated both in the header and in the abstract.

(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 2 option codes for OPTION_SOL_MAX_RT and
  OPTION_INF_MAX_RT DHCPv6 options. IANA section is minimalistic, but
  correct. Please note that the "DHCP Option codes" is correct as that
  is the name for a registry of DHCPv6 options. DHCPv4 options are
  kept in "BOOTP Vendor Extensions and DHCP Options".

(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.

  No such reviews were needed.