Skip to main content

Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol for IPv6 (DHCPv6)
draft-ietf-dhc-rfc8415bis-07

Revision differences

Document history

Date Rev. By Action
2025-01-26
07 Éric Vyncke IETF Last Call comments should be addressed per
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dhcwg/eSWn501nDe5GlGq6SfZ6hVVySkM/
2025-01-26
07 (System) Changed action holders to Michael Richardson, Bernie Volz, Sheng Jiang, Tomek Mrugalski, Timothy Winters (IESG state changed)
2025-01-26
07 Éric Vyncke IESG state changed to Waiting for AD Go-Ahead::Revised I-D Needed from Waiting for AD Go-Ahead
2025-01-13
07 Jim Reid Request closed, assignment withdrawn: Jim Reid Last Call DNSDIR review
2025-01-13
07 Jim Reid Closed request for Last Call review by DNSDIR with state 'Overtaken by Events': The datatracker is confused. The dnsdir review has been submitted.
2025-01-13
07 (System) IESG state changed to Waiting for AD Go-Ahead from In Last Call
2025-01-12
07 Jim Reid Request for Last Call review by DNSDIR Completed: Ready with Nits. Reviewer: Jim Reid. Sent review to list.
2024-12-30
07 Cindy Morgan
The following Last Call announcement was sent out (ends 2025-01-13):

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC: dhc-chairs@ietf.org, dhcwg@ietf.org, draft-ietf-dhc-rfc8415bis@ietf.org, evyncke@cisco.com, sureshk@cisco.com …
The following Last Call announcement was sent out (ends 2025-01-13):

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC: dhc-chairs@ietf.org, dhcwg@ietf.org, draft-ietf-dhc-rfc8415bis@ietf.org, evyncke@cisco.com, sureshk@cisco.com
Reply-To: last-call@ietf.org
Sender:
Subject: Extended Last Call:  (Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol for IPv6 (DHCPv6)) to Internet Standard

Note: This Last Call was originally sent on 2024-12-12 with an end date
of 2024-12-26. This Last Call has been extended until 2025-01-13.

The IESG has received a request from the Dynamic Host Configuration WG (dhc)
to consider the following document: - 'Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol
for IPv6 (DHCPv6)'
  as Internet 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
last-call@ietf.org mailing lists by 2025-01-13. 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 describes the Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol for
  IPv6 (DHCPv6): an extensible mechanism for configuring nodes with
  network configuration parameters, IP addresses, and prefixes.
  Parameters can be provided statelessly, or in combination with
  stateful assignment of one or more IPv6 addresses and/or IPv6
  prefixes.  DHCPv6 can operate either in place of or in addition to
  stateless address autoconfiguration (SLAAC).

  This document obsoletes RFC8415 to incorporate reported errata and to
  obsolete the assignment of temporary addresses (the IA_TA option) and
  the server unicast capability (the Server Unicast option and
  UseMulticast status code).




The file can be obtained via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dhc-rfc8415bis/



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


The document contains these normative downward references.
See RFC 3967 for additional information:
    rfc4861: Neighbor Discovery for IP version 6 (IPv6) (Draft Standard - Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) stream)
    rfc4862: IPv6 Stateless Address Autoconfiguration (Draft Standard - Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) stream)
    rfc6221: Lightweight DHCPv6 Relay Agent (Proposed Standard - Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) stream)
    rfc6355: Definition of the UUID-Based DHCPv6 Unique Identifier (DUID-UUID) (Proposed Standard - Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) stream)
    rfc8213: Security of Messages Exchanged between Servers and Relay Agents (Proposed Standard - Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) stream)
    rfc8415: Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol for IPv6 (DHCPv6) (Proposed Standard - Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) stream)



2024-12-30
07 Cindy Morgan IESG state changed to In Last Call from Last Call Requested
2024-12-30
07 Cindy Morgan Last call was requested
2024-12-30
07 Cindy Morgan IESG state changed to Last Call Requested from Waiting for AD Go-Ahead
2024-12-30
07 Cindy Morgan Last call announcement was changed
2024-12-30
07 Cindy Morgan Last call announcement was generated
2024-12-26
07 Dale Worley Request for Last Call review by GENART Completed: Ready with Nits. Reviewer: Dale Worley. Sent review to list.
2024-12-26
07 Éric Vyncke Ballot writeup was changed
2024-12-26
07 (System) IESG state changed to Waiting for AD Go-Ahead from In Last Call
2024-12-19
07 David Dong
IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

IANA has completed its review of draft-ietf-dhc-rfc8415bis-07. If any part of this review is inaccurate, please let us know.

IANA understands that, upon …
IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

IANA has completed its review of draft-ietf-dhc-rfc8415bis-07. If any part of this review is inaccurate, please let us know.

IANA understands that, upon approval of this document, there are three actions which we must complete.

First, in the following registries, the existing references to [RFC8415] will be changed to [ RFC-to-be ]:

https://www.iana.org/assignments/dhcpv6-parameters/
https://www.iana.org/assignments/auth-namespaces/
https://www.iana.org/assignments/bootp-dhcp-parameters/
https://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv6-multicast-addresses/
https://www.iana.org/assignments/service-names-port-numbers/

Second, in the Option Codes registry in the Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol for IPv6 (DHCPv6) registry group located at:

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

the following option codes will be marked OBSOLETE:

Value: 4
Description: IA_TA
Client ORO: No
Singleton Option: No

Value: 12
Description: UNICAST
Client ORO: No
Singleton Option: Yes

Per the IANA action above, the references for these OBSOLETE option codes will be changed to [ RFC-to-be ].

Third, in the Status Codes registry also in the Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol for IPv6 (DHCPv6) registry group located at:

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

the following status code will be marked OBSOLETE:

Code: 5
Name: UseMulticast

Per the IANA action above, the reference for this OBSOLETE status code will be changed to [ RFC-to-be ].

We understand 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 meant only to confirm the list of actions that will be performed.

For definitions of IANA review states, please see:

https://datatracker.ietf.org/help/state/draft/iana-review

Thank you,

David Dong
IANA Services Sr. Specialist
2024-12-19
07 (System) IANA Review state changed to IANA OK - Actions Needed from IANA - Review Needed
2024-12-19
07 Jean Mahoney Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Dale Worley
2024-12-17
07 Barry Leiba Request for Last Call review by ARTART is assigned to Patrik Fältström
2024-12-12
07 Tero Kivinen Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Kathleen Moriarty
2024-12-12
07 Geoff Huston Request for Last Call review by DNSDIR is assigned to Jim Reid
2024-12-12
07 Jenny Bui
The following Last Call announcement was sent out (ends 2024-12-26):

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC: dhc-chairs@ietf.org, dhcwg@ietf.org, draft-ietf-dhc-rfc8415bis@ietf.org, evyncke@cisco.com, sureshk@cisco.com …
The following Last Call announcement was sent out (ends 2024-12-26):

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC: dhc-chairs@ietf.org, dhcwg@ietf.org, draft-ietf-dhc-rfc8415bis@ietf.org, evyncke@cisco.com, sureshk@cisco.com
Reply-To: last-call@ietf.org
Sender:
Subject: Last Call:  (Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol for IPv6 (DHCPv6)) to Internet Standard


The IESG has received a request from the Dynamic Host Configuration WG (dhc)
to consider the following document: - 'Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol
for IPv6 (DHCPv6)'
  as Internet 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
last-call@ietf.org mailing lists by 2024-12-26. 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 describes the Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol for
  IPv6 (DHCPv6): an extensible mechanism for configuring nodes with
  network configuration parameters, IP addresses, and prefixes.
  Parameters can be provided statelessly, or in combination with
  stateful assignment of one or more IPv6 addresses and/or IPv6
  prefixes.  DHCPv6 can operate either in place of or in addition to
  stateless address autoconfiguration (SLAAC).

  This document obsoletes RFC8415 to incorporate reported errata and to
  obsolete the assignment of temporary addresses (the IA_TA option) and
  the server unicast capability (the Server Unicast option and
  UseMulticast status code).




The file can be obtained via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dhc-rfc8415bis/



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


The document contains these normative downward references.
See RFC 3967 for additional information:
    rfc4861: Neighbor Discovery for IP version 6 (IPv6) (Draft Standard - Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) stream)
    rfc4862: IPv6 Stateless Address Autoconfiguration (Draft Standard - Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) stream)
    rfc6221: Lightweight DHCPv6 Relay Agent (Proposed Standard - Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) stream)
    rfc6355: Definition of the UUID-Based DHCPv6 Unique Identifier (DUID-UUID) (Proposed Standard - Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) stream)
    rfc8213: Security of Messages Exchanged between Servers and Relay Agents (Proposed Standard - Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) stream)
    rfc8415: Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol for IPv6 (DHCPv6) (Proposed Standard - Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) stream)



2024-12-12
07 Jenny Bui Last call announcement was generated
2024-12-12
07 Jenny Bui IANA Review state changed to IANA - Review Needed
2024-12-12
07 Jenny Bui
The following Last Call announcement was sent out (ends 2024-12-26):

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC: dhc-chairs@ietf.org, dhcwg@ietf.org, draft-ietf-dhc-rfc8415bis@ietf.org, evyncke@cisco.com, sureshk@cisco.com …
The following Last Call announcement was sent out (ends 2024-12-26):

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC: dhc-chairs@ietf.org, dhcwg@ietf.org, draft-ietf-dhc-rfc8415bis@ietf.org, evyncke@cisco.com, sureshk@cisco.com
Reply-To: last-call@ietf.org
Sender:
Subject: Last Call:  (Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol for IPv6 (DHCPv6)) to Internet Standard


The IESG has received a request from the Dynamic Host Configuration WG (dhc)
to consider the following document: - 'Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol
for IPv6 (DHCPv6)'
  as Internet 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
last-call@ietf.org mailing lists by 2024-12-26. 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 describes the Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol for
  IPv6 (DHCPv6): an extensible mechanism for configuring nodes with
  network configuration parameters, IP addresses, and prefixes.
  Parameters can be provided statelessly, or in combination with
  stateful assignment of one or more IPv6 addresses and/or IPv6
  prefixes.  DHCPv6 can operate either in place of or in addition to
  stateless address autoconfiguration (SLAAC).

  This document obsoletes RFC8415 to incorporate reported errata and to
  obsolete the assignment of temporary addresses (the IA_TA option) and
  the server unicast capability (the Server Unicast option and
  UseMulticast status code).




The file can be obtained via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dhc-rfc8415bis/



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


The document contains these normative downward references.
See RFC 3967 for additional information:
    rfc4861: Neighbor Discovery for IP version 6 (IPv6) (Draft Standard - Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) stream)
    rfc4862: IPv6 Stateless Address Autoconfiguration (Draft Standard - Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) stream)
    rfc6221: Lightweight DHCPv6 Relay Agent (Proposed Standard - Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) stream)
    rfc6355: Definition of the UUID-Based DHCPv6 Unique Identifier (DUID-UUID) (Proposed Standard - Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) stream)
    rfc8213: Security of Messages Exchanged between Servers and Relay Agents (Proposed Standard - Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) stream)
    rfc8415: Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol for IPv6 (DHCPv6) (Proposed Standard - Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) stream)



2024-12-12
07 Jenny Bui IESG state changed to In Last Call from Last Call Requested
2024-12-12
07 Jenny Bui Last call announcement was generated
2024-12-12
07 Éric Vyncke Last call was requested
2024-12-12
07 Éric Vyncke Last call announcement was changed
2024-12-12
07 Éric Vyncke Last call was requested
2024-12-12
07 Éric Vyncke Ballot approval text was generated
2024-12-12
07 Éric Vyncke Ballot writeup was generated
2024-12-12
07 Éric Vyncke IESG state changed to Last Call Requested from AD Evaluation::AD Followup
2024-12-12
07 Éric Vyncke Last call announcement was generated
2024-12-12
07 (System) Changed action holders to Éric Vyncke (IESG state changed)
2024-12-12
07 (System) Sub state has been changed to AD Followup from Revised I-D Needed
2024-12-12
07 Tomek Mrugalski New version available: draft-ietf-dhc-rfc8415bis-07.txt
2024-12-12
07 Tomek Mrugalski New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Tomek Mrugalski)
2024-12-12
07 Tomek Mrugalski Uploaded new revision
2024-12-04
06 Suresh Krishnan
# Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents

*This version is dated 4 July 2022.*

Thank you for your service as a document shepherd. Among the …
# Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents

*This version is dated 4 July 2022.*

Thank you for your service as a document shepherd. Among the responsibilities is
answering the questions in this write-up to give helpful context to Last Call
and Internet Engineering Steering Group ([IESG][1]) reviewers, and your
diligence in completing it is appreciated. The full role of the shepherd is
further described in [RFC 4858][2]. You will need the cooperation of the authors
and editors to complete these checks.

Note that some numbered items contain multiple related questions; please be sure
to answer all of them.

## Document History

1. Does the working group (WG) consensus represent the strong concurrence of a
  few individuals, with others being silent, or did it reach broad agreement?

Yes. There is strong consensus to progress this document that elevates the DHCPv6 specification to to an Internet Standard.

2. Was there controversy about particular points, or were there decisions where
  the consensus was particularly rough?

No. There was some confusion about the IA Address option as to whether it was mandatory to be encapsulated inside an IA_NA as RFC8415 had some text with a lower case "must". After some investigation it was then clear that there was already a mechanism (DHCPv6 Leasequery[RFC5007]) that used IA Address outside IA_NA. This text has now been reworked to document this exception. There was some clarifying text regarding significant prefix changes that was required and this has also been added.

3. Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If
  so, please summarize 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.

4. For protocol documents, are there existing implementations of the contents of
  the document? Have a significant number of potential implementers indicated
  plans to implement? Are any existing implementations reported somewhere,
  either in the document itself (as [RFC 7942][3] recommends) or elsewhere
  (where)?

There are numerous interoperable implementations on multiple platforms and they have been documented in an Implementation Status section (Section 22 of the draft)

## Additional Reviews

5. Do the contents of this document closely interact with technologies in other
  IETF working groups or external organizations, and would it therefore benefit
  from their review? Have those reviews occurred? If yes, describe which
  reviews took place.

This document contains minor clarifying changes and removal of less used features such as IA_TA and the server unicast capability from RFC8415, which has gone through the entire IETF process. I had performed a complete review of RFC8415 as the shepherding AD, and that of this draft as the Document Shepherd.

6. Describe how the document meets any required formal expert review criteria,
  such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.

N/A

7. If the document contains a YANG module, has the final version of the module
  been checked with any of the [recommended validation tools][4] for syntax and
  formatting validation? If there are any resulting errors or warnings, what is
  the justification for not fixing them at this time? Does the YANG module
  comply with the Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA) as specified
  in [RFC 8342][5]?

N/A

8. Describe reviews and automated checks performed to validate sections of the
  final version of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code,
  BNF rules, MIB definitions, CBOR's CDDL, etc.

N/A

## Document Shepherd Checks

9. Based on the shepherd's review of the document, is it their opinion that this
  document is needed, clearly written, complete, correctly designed, and ready
  to be handed off to the responsible Area Director?

Yes. I have reviewed the document and it is ready to progress to the responsible AD.

10. Several IETF Areas have assembled [lists of common issues that their
    reviewers encounter][6]. For which areas have such issues been identified
    and addressed? For which does this still need to happen in subsequent
    reviews?

None of the issues identified in the Internet Area affect this document.

11. What type of RFC publication is being requested on the IETF stream ([Best
    Current Practice][12], [Proposed Standard, Internet Standard][13],
    [Informational, Experimental or Historic][14])? Why is this the proper type
    of RFC? Do all Datatracker state attributes correctly reflect this intent?

Internet Standard. The original DHCPv6 protocol (RFC3315) was published, implemented and deployed over two decades ago. RFC8415 published in 2018 consolidated the base DHCPv6 protocol defined in RFC3315, and incorporated several key extensions, clarifications and errata. This draft meets the criteria to be elevated to Internet standard

a) There are multiple independent interoperating implementations with widespread deployment and successful operational experience.

b) There are no errata against the specification that would cause a new implementation to fail to interoperate with deployed ones.

c) The unused features in the specification that increased implementation complexity have been removed. The IA_TA option has been deprecated and has not been supported in the Kea DHCP Server [KEA] which is the most commonly used open source DHCPv6 server. The server unicast option was not widely deployed since most deployments that require DHCPv6 traffic to go through relays (e.g. Cable networks) would have issues if the messages were unicasted to the servers.

[KEA] https://kea.readthedocs.io/en/kea-2.2.0/arm/dhcp6-srv.html#supported-dhcpv6-standards

12. Have reasonable efforts been made to remind all authors of the intellectual
    property rights (IPR) disclosure obligations described in [BCP 79][7]? To
    the best of your knowledge, have all required disclosures been filed? If
    not, explain why. If yes, summarize any relevant discussion, including links
    to publicly-available messages when applicable.

Yes.

13. Has each author, editor, and contributor shown their willingness to be
    listed as such? If the total number of authors and editors on the front page
    is greater than five, please provide a justification.

Yes.

14. Document any remaining I-D nits in this document. Simply running the [idnits
    tool][8] is not enough; please review the ["Content Guidelines" on
    authors.ietf.org][15]. (Also note that the current idnits tool generates
    some incorrect warnings; a rewrite is underway.)

There are no remaining ID-nits. The warnings and comments thrown up by idnits are spurious.

15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the [IESG
    Statement on Normative and Informative References][16].

No.

16. List any normative references that are not freely available to anyone. Did
    the community have sufficient access to review any such normative
    references?

No.

17. Are there any normative downward references (see [RFC 3967][9] and [BCP
    97
][10]) that are not already listed in the [DOWNREF registry][17]? If so,
    list them.

No.

18. Are there normative references to documents that are not ready to be
    submitted to the IESG for publication or are otherwise in an unclear state?
    If so, what is the plan for their completion?

No.

19. Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? If
    so, does the Datatracker metadata correctly reflect this and are those RFCs
    listed on the title page, in the abstract, and discussed in the
    introduction? If not, explain why and point to the part of the document
    where the relationship of this document to these other RFCs is discussed.

Yes. This document will Obsolete RFC8415 and this is covered by the draft.

20. 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 aspects of the document requiring IANA assignments are
    associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm
    that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm
    that each newly created IANA registry specifies its initial contents,
    allocations procedures, and a reasonable name (see [RFC 8126][11]).

There are a couple of options and a status code that have been obsoleted due to lack of use and this is reflected correctly in the IANA considerations section.

21. List any new IANA registries that require Designated Expert Review for
    future allocations. Are the instructions to the Designated Expert clear?
    Please include suggestions of designated experts, if appropriate.

N/A
2024-11-15
06 Éric Vyncke AD review done: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dhcwg/DAuBEg10-I3XawzJOvzt2uhxe0o/
2024-11-15
06 (System) Changed action holders to Michael Richardson, Bernie Volz, Sheng Jiang, Tomek Mrugalski, Timothy Winters (IESG state changed)
2024-11-15
06 Éric Vyncke IESG state changed to AD Evaluation::Revised I-D Needed from AD Evaluation
2024-11-15
06 Éric Vyncke IESG state changed to AD Evaluation from Publication Requested
2024-11-07
06 Bernie Volz Tag Revised I-D Needed - Issue raised by WG cleared.
2024-11-07
06 Bernie Volz
# Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents

*This version is dated 4 July 2022.*

Thank you for your service as a document shepherd. Among the …
# Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents

*This version is dated 4 July 2022.*

Thank you for your service as a document shepherd. Among the responsibilities is
answering the questions in this write-up to give helpful context to Last Call
and Internet Engineering Steering Group ([IESG][1]) reviewers, and your
diligence in completing it is appreciated. The full role of the shepherd is
further described in [RFC 4858][2]. You will need the cooperation of the authors
and editors to complete these checks.

Note that some numbered items contain multiple related questions; please be sure
to answer all of them.

## Document History

1. Does the working group (WG) consensus represent the strong concurrence of a
  few individuals, with others being silent, or did it reach broad agreement?

Yes. There is strong consensus to progress this document that elevates the DHCPv6 specification to to an Internet Standard.

2. Was there controversy about particular points, or were there decisions where
  the consensus was particularly rough?

No. There was some confusion about the IA Address option as to whether it was mandatory to be encapsulated inside an IA_NA as RFC8415 had some text with a lower case "must". After some investigation it was then clear that there was already a mechanism (DHCPv6 Leasequery[RFC5007]) that used IA Address outside IA_NA. This text has now been reworked to document this exception. There was some clarifying text regarding significant prefix changes that was required and this has also been added.

3. Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If
  so, please summarize 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.

4. For protocol documents, are there existing implementations of the contents of
  the document? Have a significant number of potential implementers indicated
  plans to implement? Are any existing implementations reported somewhere,
  either in the document itself (as [RFC 7942][3] recommends) or elsewhere
  (where)?

There are numerous interoperable implementations on multiple platforms and they have been documented in an Implementation Status section (Section 22 of the draft)

## Additional Reviews

5. Do the contents of this document closely interact with technologies in other
  IETF working groups or external organizations, and would it therefore benefit
  from their review? Have those reviews occurred? If yes, describe which
  reviews took place.

This document contains minor clarifying changes and removal of less used features such as IA_TA and the server unicast capability from RFC8415, which has gone through the entire IETF process. I had performed a complete review of RFC8415 as the shepherding AD, and that of this draft as the Document Shepherd.

6. Describe how the document meets any required formal expert review criteria,
  such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.

N/A

7. If the document contains a YANG module, has the final version of the module
  been checked with any of the [recommended validation tools][4] for syntax and
  formatting validation? If there are any resulting errors or warnings, what is
  the justification for not fixing them at this time? Does the YANG module
  comply with the Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA) as specified
  in [RFC 8342][5]?

N/A

8. Describe reviews and automated checks performed to validate sections of the
  final version of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code,
  BNF rules, MIB definitions, CBOR's CDDL, etc.

N/A

## Document Shepherd Checks

9. Based on the shepherd's review of the document, is it their opinion that this
  document is needed, clearly written, complete, correctly designed, and ready
  to be handed off to the responsible Area Director?

Yes. I have reviewed the document and it is ready to progress to the responsible AD.

10. Several IETF Areas have assembled [lists of common issues that their
    reviewers encounter][6]. For which areas have such issues been identified
    and addressed? For which does this still need to happen in subsequent
    reviews?

None of the issues identified in the Internet Area affect this document.

11. What type of RFC publication is being requested on the IETF stream ([Best
    Current Practice][12], [Proposed Standard, Internet Standard][13],
    [Informational, Experimental or Historic][14])? Why is this the proper type
    of RFC? Do all Datatracker state attributes correctly reflect this intent?

Internet Standard. The original DHCPv6 protocol (RFC3315) was published, implemented and deployed over two decades ago. RFC8415 published in 2018 consolidated the base DHCPv6 protocol defined in RFC3315, and incorporated several key extensions, clarifications and errata. This draft meets the criteria to be elevated to Internet standard

a) There are multiple independent interoperating implementations with widespread deployment and successful operational experience.

b) There are no errata against the specification that would cause a new implementation to fail to interoperate with deployed ones.

c) The unused features in the specification that increased implementation complexity have been removed

12. Have reasonable efforts been made to remind all authors of the intellectual
    property rights (IPR) disclosure obligations described in [BCP 79][7]? To
    the best of your knowledge, have all required disclosures been filed? If
    not, explain why. If yes, summarize any relevant discussion, including links
    to publicly-available messages when applicable.

Yes.

13. Has each author, editor, and contributor shown their willingness to be
    listed as such? If the total number of authors and editors on the front page
    is greater than five, please provide a justification.

Yes.

14. Document any remaining I-D nits in this document. Simply running the [idnits
    tool][8] is not enough; please review the ["Content Guidelines" on
    authors.ietf.org][15]. (Also note that the current idnits tool generates
    some incorrect warnings; a rewrite is underway.)

There are no remaining ID-nits. The warnings and comments thrown up by idnits are spurious.

15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the [IESG
    Statement on Normative and Informative References][16].

No.

16. List any normative references that are not freely available to anyone. Did
    the community have sufficient access to review any such normative
    references?

No.

17. Are there any normative downward references (see [RFC 3967][9] and [BCP
    97
][10]) that are not already listed in the [DOWNREF registry][17]? If so,
    list them.

No.

18. Are there normative references to documents that are not ready to be
    submitted to the IESG for publication or are otherwise in an unclear state?
    If so, what is the plan for their completion?

No.

19. Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? If
    so, does the Datatracker metadata correctly reflect this and are those RFCs
    listed on the title page, in the abstract, and discussed in the
    introduction? If not, explain why and point to the part of the document
    where the relationship of this document to these other RFCs is discussed.

Yes. This document will Obsolete RFC8415 and this is covered by the draft.

20. 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 aspects of the document requiring IANA assignments are
    associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm
    that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm
    that each newly created IANA registry specifies its initial contents,
    allocations procedures, and a reasonable name (see [RFC 8126][11]).

There are a couple of options and a status code that have been obsoleted due to lack of use and this is reflected correctly in the IANA considerations section.

21. List any new IANA registries that require Designated Expert Review for
    future allocations. Are the instructions to the Designated Expert clear?
    Please include suggestions of designated experts, if appropriate.

N/A
2024-11-07
06 Bernie Volz IETF WG state changed to Submitted to IESG for Publication from WG Consensus: Waiting for Write-Up
2024-11-07
06 Bernie Volz IESG state changed to Publication Requested from I-D Exists
2024-11-07
06 (System) Changed action holders to Éric Vyncke (IESG state changed)
2024-11-07
06 Bernie Volz Responsible AD changed to Éric Vyncke
2024-11-07
06 Bernie Volz Document is now in IESG state Publication Requested
2024-10-21
06 Timothy Winters New version available: draft-ietf-dhc-rfc8415bis-06.txt
2024-10-21
06 Timothy Winters New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Timothy Winters)
2024-10-21
06 Timothy Winters Uploaded new revision
2024-10-18
05 Suresh Krishnan
# Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents

*This version is dated 4 July 2022.*

Thank you for your service as a document shepherd. Among the …
# Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents

*This version is dated 4 July 2022.*

Thank you for your service as a document shepherd. Among the responsibilities is
answering the questions in this write-up to give helpful context to Last Call
and Internet Engineering Steering Group ([IESG][1]) reviewers, and your
diligence in completing it is appreciated. The full role of the shepherd is
further described in [RFC 4858][2]. You will need the cooperation of the authors
and editors to complete these checks.

Note that some numbered items contain multiple related questions; please be sure
to answer all of them.

## Document History

1. Does the working group (WG) consensus represent the strong concurrence of a
  few individuals, with others being silent, or did it reach broad agreement?

Yes. There is strong consensus to progress this document that elevates the DHCPv6 specification to to an Internet Standard.

2. Was there controversy about particular points, or were there decisions where
  the consensus was particularly rough?

No. There was some confusion about the IA Address option as to whether it was mandatory to be encapsulated inside an IA_NA as RFC8415 had some text with a lower case "must". After some investigation it was then clear that there was already a mechanism (DHCPv6 Leasequery[RFC5007]) that used IA Address outside IA_NA. This text has now been reworked to document this exception. There was some clarifying text regarding significant prefix changes that was required and this has also been added.

3. Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If
  so, please summarize 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.

4. For protocol documents, are there existing implementations of the contents of
  the document? Have a significant number of potential implementers indicated
  plans to implement? Are any existing implementations reported somewhere,
  either in the document itself (as [RFC 7942][3] recommends) or elsewhere
  (where)?

There are numerous interoperable implementations on multiple platforms and they have been documented in an Implementation Status section (Section 22 of the draft)

## Additional Reviews

5. Do the contents of this document closely interact with technologies in other
  IETF working groups or external organizations, and would it therefore benefit
  from their review? Have those reviews occurred? If yes, describe which
  reviews took place.

This document contains minor clarifying changes and removal of less used features such as IA_TA and the server unicast capability from RFC8415, which has gone through the entire IETF process. I had performed a complete review of RFC8415 as the shepherding AD, and that of this draft as the Document Shepherd.

6. Describe how the document meets any required formal expert review criteria,
  such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.

N/A

7. If the document contains a YANG module, has the final version of the module
  been checked with any of the [recommended validation tools][4] for syntax and
  formatting validation? If there are any resulting errors or warnings, what is
  the justification for not fixing them at this time? Does the YANG module
  comply with the Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA) as specified
  in [RFC 8342][5]?

N/A

8. Describe reviews and automated checks performed to validate sections of the
  final version of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code,
  BNF rules, MIB definitions, CBOR's CDDL, etc.

N/A

## Document Shepherd Checks

9. Based on the shepherd's review of the document, is it their opinion that this
  document is needed, clearly written, complete, correctly designed, and ready
  to be handed off to the responsible Area Director?

Yes. I have reviewed the document and it is ready to progress to the responsible AD.

10. Several IETF Areas have assembled [lists of common issues that their
    reviewers encounter][6]. For which areas have such issues been identified
    and addressed? For which does this still need to happen in subsequent
    reviews?

None of the issues identified in the Internet Area affect this document.

11. What type of RFC publication is being requested on the IETF stream ([Best
    Current Practice][12], [Proposed Standard, Internet Standard][13],
    [Informational, Experimental or Historic][14])? Why is this the proper type
    of RFC? Do all Datatracker state attributes correctly reflect this intent?

Internet Standard. The original DHCPv6 protocol (RFC3315) was published, implemented and deployed over two decades ago. RFC8415 published in 2018 consolidated the base DHCPv6 protocol defined in RFC3315, and incorporated several key extensions, clarifications and errata. This draft meets the criteria to be elevated to Internet standard

a) There are multiple independent interoperating implementations with widespread deployment and successful operational experience.

b) There are no errata against the specification that would cause a new implementation to fail to interoperate with deployed ones.

c) The unused features in the specification that increased implementation complexity have been removed

12. Have reasonable efforts been made to remind all authors of the intellectual
    property rights (IPR) disclosure obligations described in [BCP 79][7]? To
    the best of your knowledge, have all required disclosures been filed? If
    not, explain why. If yes, summarize any relevant discussion, including links
    to publicly-available messages when applicable.

Yes.

13. Has each author, editor, and contributor shown their willingness to be
    listed as such? If the total number of authors and editors on the front page
    is greater than five, please provide a justification.

Yes.

14. Document any remaining I-D nits in this document. Simply running the [idnits
    tool][8] is not enough; please review the ["Content Guidelines" on
    authors.ietf.org][15]. (Also note that the current idnits tool generates
    some incorrect warnings; a rewrite is underway.)

There are no remaining ID-nits. The warnings and comments thrown up by idnits are spurious.

15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the [IESG
    Statement on Normative and Informative References][16].

No.

16. List any normative references that are not freely available to anyone. Did
    the community have sufficient access to review any such normative
    references?

No.

17. Are there any normative downward references (see [RFC 3967][9] and [BCP
    97
][10]) that are not already listed in the [DOWNREF registry][17]? If so,
    list them.

No.

18. Are there normative references to documents that are not ready to be
    submitted to the IESG for publication or are otherwise in an unclear state?
    If so, what is the plan for their completion?

No.

19. Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? If
    so, does the Datatracker metadata correctly reflect this and are those RFCs
    listed on the title page, in the abstract, and discussed in the
    introduction? If not, explain why and point to the part of the document
    where the relationship of this document to these other RFCs is discussed.

Yes. This document will Obsolete RFC8415 and this is covered by the draft.

20. 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 aspects of the document requiring IANA assignments are
    associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm
    that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm
    that each newly created IANA registry specifies its initial contents,
    allocations procedures, and a reasonable name (see [RFC 8126][11]).

There are a couple of options and a status code that have been obsoleted due to lack of use and this is reflected correctly in the IANA considerations section.

21. List any new IANA registries that require Designated Expert Review for
    future allocations. Are the instructions to the Designated Expert clear?
    Please include suggestions of designated experts, if appropriate.

N/A
2024-10-14
05 Timothy Winters IETF WG state changed to WG Consensus: Waiting for Write-Up from In WG Last Call
2024-07-11
05 Bernie Volz Added to session: IETF-120: dhc  Wed-0030
2024-07-08
05 Timothy Winters New version available: draft-ietf-dhc-rfc8415bis-05.txt
2024-07-08
05 Timothy Winters New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Timothy Winters)
2024-07-08
05 Timothy Winters Uploaded new revision
2024-03-04
04 Bernie Volz
Several comments on some minor issues have been posted to WG mailing that authors have been working on and revised -04 generated. One new open …
Several comments on some minor issues have been posted to WG mailing that authors have been working on and revised -04 generated. One new open issue is confusion on udp ports.
2024-03-04
04 Bernie Volz Tag Revised I-D Needed - Issue raised by WG set.
2024-02-26
04 Timothy Winters New version available: draft-ietf-dhc-rfc8415bis-04.txt
2024-02-26
04 Timothy Winters New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Timothy Winters)
2024-02-26
04 Timothy Winters Uploaded new revision
2023-11-06
03 Timothy Winters Added to session: IETF-118: dhc  Wed-1200
2023-10-23
03 Bernie Volz Extended WGLC initiated, ends November 20, 2023 17:00 EST.
2023-10-23
03 Bernie Volz IETF WG state changed to In WG Last Call from WG Document
2023-10-22
03 Michael Richardson New version available: draft-ietf-dhc-rfc8415bis-03.txt
2023-10-22
03 Michael Richardson New version approved
2023-10-22
03 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Bernie Volz , Michael Richardson , Sheng Jiang , Timothy Winters , Tomek Mrugalski
2023-10-22
03 Michael Richardson Uploaded new revision
2023-07-10
02 Tomek Mrugalski New version available: draft-ietf-dhc-rfc8415bis-02.txt
2023-07-10
02 Tomek Mrugalski New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Tomek Mrugalski)
2023-07-10
02 Tomek Mrugalski Uploaded new revision
2023-06-29
01 Bernie Volz Changed consensus to Yes from Unknown
2023-06-29
01 Bernie Volz Intended Status changed to Internet Standard from None
2023-06-29
01 Bernie Volz New version available: draft-ietf-dhc-rfc8415bis-01.txt
2023-06-29
01 Bernie Volz New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Bernie Volz)
2023-06-29
01 Bernie Volz Uploaded new revision
2023-06-27
00 Bernie Volz Added to session: IETF-117: dhc  Tue-0030
2023-03-09
00 Bernie Volz Notification list changed to sureshk@cisco.com because the document shepherd was set
2023-03-09
00 Bernie Volz Document shepherd changed to Suresh Krishnan
2023-01-06
00 Bernie Volz This document now replaces draft-dhcwg-dhc-rfc8415bis instead of None
2023-01-06
00 Bernie Volz New version available: draft-ietf-dhc-rfc8415bis-00.txt
2023-01-06
00 Bernie Volz WG -00 approved
2023-01-06
00 Bernie Volz Set submitter to "Bernie Volz ", replaces to draft-dhcwg-dhc-rfc8415bis and sent approval email to group chairs: dhc-chairs@ietf.org
2023-01-06
00 Bernie Volz Uploaded new revision