Document Writeup for draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-solmaxrt-update-02
As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document
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:
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.
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.
Who is the Document Shepherd? Who is the Responsible Area
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
I did thoroughly review this document more than once. My latests
review comments are here:
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
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
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,
(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?
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.)
(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
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
(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 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.
(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
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.