DHCPv6 Leasequery
draft-ietf-dhc-dhcvp6-leasequery-01

Writeup part 2:

(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
  Relevant content can frequently be found in the abstract
  and/or introduction of the document.  If not, this may be
  an indication that there are deficiencies in the abstract
  or introduction.

  "DHCPv6 Leasequery"
  specifies a mechanism, "leasequery", for the Dynamic Host
  Configuration Protocol for IPv6 (DHCPv6) through which lease
  information about DHCPv6 clients can be obtained from a DHCPv6
  server.  This document specifies the scope of data that can be
  retrieved as well as both DHCPv6 leasequery requestor and server
  behavior.  This document extends DHCPv6.

      Working Group Summary
  Was there anything in WG process that is worth noting?  For
  example, was there controversy about particular points or
  were there decisions where the consensus was particularly
  rough?

Nothing to note beyond what is described above.

      Document Quality
  Are there existing implementations of the protocol?  Have a
  significant number of vendors indicated their plan to
  implement the specification?  Are there any reviewers that
  merit special mention as having done a thorough review,
  e.g., one that resulted in important changes or a
  conclusion that the document had no substantive issues?  If
  there was a MIB Doctor, Media Type or other expert review,
  what was its course (briefly)?  In the case of a Media Type
  review, on what date was the request posted?

There are no known implementations of the protocol.  Comcast
contributed to the document, so it is expected that there will be
implementations to meet Comcast and other DOCSIS 3.0 deployment
requirements.  No special reviews were performed or required.

The mechanism in this document is related to and based in
implementation and deployment experience with a similar leasequery
mechanism for DHCPv4, RFC 4388.

      Personnel
  Who is the Document Shepherd for this document?  Who is the
  Responsible Area Director? Is an IANA expert needed?

Shepherd: Ralph Droms
AD:      Jari Arkko
IANA:    N/A

Writeup part 1:

(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?

Ralph Droms, dhc WG co-chair
I have reviewed the document and I believe it is ready 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 was carefully reviewed and extensively discussed on the
dhc WG mailing list.  As a result of the discussion, the design of the
leasequery mechanism was significantly simplified and clarified.
During WG last call on the document, the participants in the earlier
WG mailing list discussion said they thought the document is now ready
for publication.

(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?

No.  This document describes an internal infrastructure mechanism for
DHCP, similar to the DHCPv4 leasequery mechanism in RFC 4388.  It uses
no other technologies that might require review.

(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.

I have no specific concerns about this document.  The primary area of
technical discussion about this document was in the inclusion of
extensions like different query methods and bulk transfers.  The
consensus of the WG was to leave those extensions out of the
specification and the text for the extensions has been removed from
the document.

To the best of my knowledge, there are no IPR disclosures on file with
the IETF related to this document.

(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?

There was significant WG involvement in the development of the final
version of this document.  There was strong consensus from a few
individuals, with no dissenting opinions, in response to the WG last
call.  Although only a few individuals responded to the WG last call,
I believe the WG as a whole understands and agrees with the document.

(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.

(1.g)  Has the Document Shepherd personally verified that the
      document satisfies all ID nits?  (See
      http://www.ietf.org/ID-Checklist.html 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?

I have verified that the document meets the requirements of
ID-Checklist.html.  There are no formal reviews 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].

The references are split into normative and informative.  There are no
problematic normative references.

(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 [RFC2434].  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 section exists.  It specifies reservations
that are appropriate for the clearly identified existing registries.
The document requests the creation of a new registry, but does not
suggest a name.  This issue can be dealt with during IESG review.

(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?

N/A