Skip to main content

Shepherd writeup
draft-ietf-dhc-rfc8415bis

# 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
Back