As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document
Shepherd Write-Up. Changes are expected over time.
This version is dated 1 November 2019.
(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?
It defines protocol extensions and procedures for applying BGP flowspec to IPv6 packets.
Yes the type is indicated in the title page header.
(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:
Dissemination of Flow Specification Rules [I-D.ietf-idr-rfc5575bis]
provides a protocol extension for propagation of traffic flow
information for the purpose of rate limiting or filtering. The
[I-D.ietf-idr-rfc5575bis] specifies those extensions for IPv4
protocol data packets only.
This specification extends [I-D.ietf-idr-rfc5575bis] and defines
changes to the original document in order to make it also usable and
applicable to IPv6 data packets.
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?
This document goes relatively smoothly in the WG. There was discussion about whether this draft should merge with another draft (5575bis) which is a revision of flowspec for IPv4. The WG has decided to move forward with 2 separate drafts (V4 and V6 respectively) at current stage.
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, YANG 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?
The features defined in this draft has been implemented by more than 2 vendors and one open source.
Who is the Document Shepherd? Who is the Responsible Area Director?
Document Shepherd: Jie Dong
Responsible Area Director: Alvaro Retana
(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.
The document shepherd performed the review on:
2) Technical review
3) Implementation report
4) IPR check
The document shepherd think after the nits are resolved, this document is ready for publication.
(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed?
(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.
Nothing beyond the normal checks.
(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.
(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?
Susan Hares: no IPR
Robert Raszuk: no IPR
Christoph Loibl: no IPR
(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures.
No IPR Disclosure.
(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?
Solid consensus according to the review and discussion on the list.
(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 publicly available.)
(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.
According to the ID nits check, there is 1 error, 6 warnings and 2 comments. The authors needs to resolve the ID nits:
(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.
Not relevant for MIB Doctor, Media type, or URI.
(13) Have all references within this document been identified as either normative or informative?
In addition to the normative and informative references, it also has one reference subsection which contains a URI.
(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 completion?
(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 it unnecessary.
None of existing RFCs status will be changed by this document.
In both abstraction and introduction, it is mentioned that this is an extension to RFC5575bis, while it is considered RFC5575bis will not be updated by this document.
(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 RFC 8126).
The IANA section is consistent with the body of the document. A detailed specification of the initial contents for the registry is provided, while that allocations procedures for future registrations are not defined yet.
IANA is requested to create and maintain a new registry entitled:
"Flow Spec IPv6 Component Types" containing the initial entries as specified in Table 1 of this document.
| Value | Name | Reference |
| 1 | Destination IPv6 Prefix | [this document] |
| 2 | Source IPv6 Prefix | [this document] |
| 3 | Next Header | [this document] |
| 4 | Port | [this document] |
| 5 | Destination port | [this document] |
| 6 | Source port | [this document] |
| 7 | ICMPv6 type | [this document] |
| 8 | ICMPv6 code | [this document] |
| 9 | TCP flags | [this document] |
| 10 | Packet length | [this document] |
| 11 | DSCP | [this document] |
| 12 | Fragment | [this document] |
| 13 | Flow Label | [this document] |
Table 1: Registry: Flow Spec IPv6 Component Types
IANA maintains a registry entitled "Generic Transitive Experimental
Use Extended Community Sub-Types". For the purpose of this work,
IANA is requested to assign a new value:
| Sub-Type | Name | Reference |
| Value | | |
| TBD | Flow spec rt-redirect-ipv6 | [this |
| | format | document] |
Table 2: Registry: Generic Transitive Experimental Use Extended
(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 registries.
This document defines a new registry, while the allocation procedure is not provided yet.
(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, YANG modules, etc.
No review or automated checks required.
(20) If the document contains a YANG module, has the module been checked with any of the recommended validation tools (https://trac.ietf.org/trac/ops/wiki/yang-review-tools) 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 RFC8342?
No YANG module defined in this document.