Write up for draft-ietf-dhc-relay-port-05.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 it defines new
DHCPv4 and DHCPv6 options. Both require standards track.
(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 specifies an optional mechanism that lets the DHCPv4 and
DHCPv6 relays to use different UDP ports than the standard ones,
defined in RFC2131 and RFC3315.
Working Group Summary:
This document has been presented in Berlin (IETF'96) and adopted
in Oct. 2016. Even though the concept is very simple, there was
an healthy discussion before it went through a successful WLGC in
I found 72 posts to DHC related to this draft (note it was named
client-port in its individual submission phase). There was never
any opposition to the concept, just couple improvement areas that
were addressed. This has been reviewed by a number of interested
and knowledgable people.
Tomek Mrugalski is the document shepherd. Suresh Krishnan is the current
(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 reviewed this document late in its life cycle (-05) and I had no
specific comments. The concept is simple and well explained, the
option formats and their usage is well defined. The option formats
follow RFC7227. This document is ready for publication in my opinion.
(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or
breadth of the reviews that have been performed?
No, this document has had sufficient 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.
(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.
The document is good as written, it is useful and I'm aware of at
least two implementations that have implemented this.
(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, both authors confirmed in writing that they are not aware
of any IPR claims related to this draft.
(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?
There is a consensus behind thid document. Several well known DHC
experts and a few newcomers reviewed this draft and expressed
support for this. This is a minor extension that affects only those
who chose to deploy it. As such, people not interested were passive,
but not objected.
(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
(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. (The one reported by idnits tool about the publication
date being 49 days in the past is a non-issue.)
(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review
criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type
No such review needed.
(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
(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
No. This document extends, but not updates RFC2131 and RFC3315. This
is an optional extension. Vendors are free to not implement this if
they chose so. Therefore it does not update the base spec RFCs.
(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
This draft defines one new DHCPv4 and one new DHCPv6 option. All IANA
actions are well defined and the registries to be updated are properly
(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
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.