DHCPv6 Vendor-specific Message
draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-vendor-message-01

[Ballot discuss]
I view this document as effectively making it so no review is needed of new DHCP options. I don't think theWG charter allows this. I also view this as very bad thing given the goals of the IETF and would likely move to abstain. If the WG wanted to move to something that allowed a large code space with a easier review process, I would have no objects to that.

[Ballot discuss]
(This is a copy of the same comment made for the dhcpv4-vendor-message document)

Should this document contain (or point to) more guidance that would encourage the use and development of interoperable DHCP options? It is currently missing any pressure to discourage the replication of already standardized behavior and encourage bringing common functionality through the standards process.

[Ballot comment]
1. I support Adrian's DISCUSS that mentioning experimental purposes is not appropriate.

2. I support Russ's DISCUSS that 'MUST use good networking practices' includes a too vague construct ('good networking practices') for a mandatory to implement statement. 

3. The IANA considerations section should note that the the document makes use of the IANA enterprise id numbers registry. While this is mentioned previously in the document (in Section 4) it is not noted in the IANA considerations section. While no specific action item is requested of IANA it is a consideration.

IANA comments:

Upon approval of this document, the IANA will make the following
assignment in the "Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol for IPv6
(DHCPv6)" registry, located at
http://www.iana.org/assignments/dhcpv6-parameters/dhcpv6-parameters.xhtml
in the subregistry "DHCP Message types"

Value Description Reference
----- --------------- ----------------------------------
254 VENDOR-SPECIFIC [RFC-dhc-dhcpv4-vendor-message-01]

[Ballot discuss]
s3, para 3: This paragraph contains weasel words about 'good
  networking practices' that 'MUST be used'.  This is untestable
  as it stands.  Is this anything more than dealing with non-replies,
  not flooding the network with repeats, and not hanging up if the
  partner never does answer?  Also, servers or clients that do not
  (yet) implement this capability do not have a defined behaviour
  when receiving this new type of message.  There is a assumption
  that they will be silently dropped without causing any problems.

[Ballot comment]
I also support Alexey's Discuss on this document. This work should not attempt to define procedures for non-supporting nodes, but must reference the base spec.

[Ballot discuss]
My Discuss is identical to the issue I raised for draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv4-vendor-message.

I think adding a vendor-specific message to DHCP is a fine thing to do.

However, I have a relatively minor issue with the current text. I don't think it is correct to suggest that a purpose of this is experimentation. Experiments are not supposed to escape into the wider Net and an experimental message would be treated differently from a vendor-specific message.

While it is true that a vendor may choose to experiment under their enterprise number, the fact that it is an experiment is actually hidden from the world, and we don't consider listing all of the other uses to which this message might be put.

I would be happy to see the reference to experimentation removed from the Abstract and the Introduction.

[Ballot discuss]
This is similar to one of the DISCUSS issues on draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv4-vendor-message-01.txt. (Note that other issues I raised against draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv4-vendor-message-01.txt are addressed in this document).

1) In Section 3

  Clients and servers MAY chose to support this message; those that do
  not, MUST discard the message.  Relay agents SHOULD relay these
  messages as they would other DHCPv6 messages unless the relay agent
  understands the specific message and knows that the message was
  directed at it.

This sounds as if this document is trying to put requirements on implementations that are not compliant with this document.
Is this section just describes something which follows from DHCPv6
extensibility rules? If yes, then rewording this paragraph to say "According to [ref] ..." would address my issue.

  (1.a) Who is the Document Shepherd for this document? Has the
        Document Shepherd personally reviewed this version of the
        document and, in particular, does he or she believe this
        version is ready for forwarding to the IESG for publication?

I (Ted Lemon ) am the shepherd for this document.
I have personally reviewed the document, and I think it is ready to
forward to the IESG for publication.

  (1.b) Has the document had adequate review both from key WG members
        and from key non-WG members? Does the Document Shepherd have
        any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that
        have been performed? 

The document has been carefully reviewed by several experienced DHCP
implementors.  I have no concerns that the document has not had
adequate review.

  (1.c) Does the Document Shepherd have concerns that the document
        needs more review from a particular or broader perspective,
        e.g., security, operational complexity, someone familiar with
        AAA, internationalization or XML?

The document is a pretty simple extension, so I don't have any such
concerns.

  (1.d) Does the Document Shepherd have any specific concerns or
        issues 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. Has an IPR disclosure related to this document
        been filed? If so, please include a reference to the
        disclosure and summarize the WG discussion and conclusion on
        this issue.

The primary concern that was raised about this document is that it
creates an escape mechanism whereby a vendor can add functionality to
DHCP without review by the DHC working group.  However, this is
already possible; vendors have in the past simply allocated message
codes from the reserved space and used them without consulting the
working group.

By providing a clear mechanism for creating experimental messages, we
hope that vendors will stop allocating reserved codes when working on
experimental DHCP extensions.

  (1.e) 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? 

Most of the more active members of the working group have reviewed the
document and support its advancement.  It's been explained in working
group meetings, so I think anyone who is interested has a pretty clear
understanding of what it does.

  (1.f) 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
        entered into the ID Tracker.)

No, in fact I was the only person who objected to the document, and
the reasoning I've given above under (1.d) is what convinced me to
agree it needed to be done.

  (1.g) Has the Document Shepherd personally verified that the
        document satisfies all ID nits? (See the Internet-Drafts Checklist
        and http://tools.ietf.org/tools/idnits/). Boilerplate checks are
        not enough; this check needs to be thorough. Has the document
        met all formal review criteria it needs to, such as the MIB
        Doctor, media type and URI type reviews?

Yes.  The document was last submitted prior to the latest update to
the IETF Trust Provisions as of 28 Dec 2009, so it contains
boilerplate from a previous version.  My intention is to ask the
author to correct this after IESG review, on the assumption that other
document changes will also be required.

  (1.h) Has the document split its references into normative and
        informative? 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
        strategy for their completion? Are there normative references
        that are downward references, as described in [RFC3967]? If
        so, list these downward references to support the Area
        Director in the Last Call procedure for them [RFC3967].

This document only makes reference to RFCs and to the IANA.

  (1.i) Has the Document Shepherd verified that the document IANA
        consideration section exists and is consistent with the body
        of the document? If the document specifies protocol
        extensions, are reservations requested in appropriate IANA
        registries? Are the IANA registries clearly identified? If
        the document creates a new registry, does it define the
        proposed initial contents of the registry and an allocation
        procedure for future registrations? Does it suggest a
        reasonable name for the new registry? See [RFC5226]. If the
        document describes an Expert Review process has Shepherd
        conferred with the Responsible Area Director so that the IESG
        can appoint the needed Expert during the IESG Evaluation?

The IANA considerations seem correct to me.

  (1.j) Has the Document Shepherd verified that sections of the
        document that are written in a formal language, such as XML
        code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc., validate correctly in
        an automated checker?

The document doesn't contain any such sections.

  (1.k) 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 provides a standard mechanism for defining
experimental messages in the DHCPv6 protocol.

    Working Group Summary
Standard DHCPv6 message codes are allocated by the IANA
and require working group approval.  The current IANA
procedure for message type code allocation requires that a
document pass a working group last call before a code
can be allocated.  Current practice among implementors of
new or experimental DHCP messages is to simply bypass the
IANA process and allocate a code.  Because this document
provides a clear alternative, the working group hopes that
no new DHCPv6 message type codes will be pirated by
experimenters.

One concern that was raised was that by providing an
unreviewed mechanism for allocating new DHCP message types,
implementors would have less of an incentive for consulting
the working group when developing new DHCP messages.
However, our experience has been that the people least likely
to consult the working group are the same people who would
feel free to simply make up a number and not tell anyone
until a collision arises.  Hence, this mechanism is seen
even by those who raised this objection as the lesser of
two evils.

    Document Quality
The document has already been used for an implementation
of an experimental authentication protocol at Cisco; the
protocol in question is under consideration for
standardization by the DHC working group.

    Personnel
Who is the Document Shepherd for this document?  Who is the
Responsible Area Director?  If the document requires IANA
experts(s), insert 'The IANA Expert(s) for the registries
in this document are .'

The document shepherd is Ted Lemon .  I believe
the responsible A-D is Ralph Droms.