Skip to main content

IPv6 Performance and Diagnostic Metrics Version 2 (PDMv2) Destination Option
draft-ietf-ippm-encrypted-pdmv2-06

Revision differences

Document history

Date Rev. By Action
2024-05-28
06 Warren Kumari IESG state changed to AD Evaluation from Publication Requested
2024-05-21
06 Tommy Pauly
# 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?

This document received support and reviews from the WG as a whole, although
the primary reviewers and commenters were a slightly different subset from
the normally most active IPPM members. This is due to the fact that IPPM
has several different "tracks" of participation, where subsets of the community
are more focused on their own topics. However, the consensus and support
of those who did comment was pretty clear.

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

No particular controversies. Much of the development and iteration on the draft
was in trying to refine the security aspects, and going back and forth with SECDIR
reviewers.

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 discontent has been epxressed.

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)?

Yes, implementations have been tested at hackathons with results presented
at WG meetings.

## 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 is a new version of a protocol previously developed in IPPM, and
is primarily focused within the group.

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.

No formal reviews like these required.

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]?

No YANG module.

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.

No formal validation.

## 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?

I think the document is clearly written and ready for Area Director review.

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?

The document went through three rounds of SECDIR review, which helped refine
the document and address many issues. I believe this was the primary area that
needed to provide input, since this document was mainly about adding
encryption support.

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?

This is requesting Proposed Standard, which is appropriate as a new protocol
version of a standards track RFC (RFC 8250). The datatracker does reflect this.

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.

All authors have confirmed that they are not aware of any IPR related to this
document, and no other WG members have brought up any IPR.

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, all authors have confirmed their willingness to author.

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.)

No nits found.

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

There are two informative references that could be considered as normative:
- RFC4303 for IPsec ESP, which is mentioned as an option for encapsulation
- RFC9180 for HPKE; this is an informational IRTF document, but has been normatively referenced in other RFCs, like RFC9458

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 such normative references.

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, but it may be good to promote RFC9180 to a normative downref.

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 such references.

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.

This document does not change the state of any other RFC, although it could be considered
to have it update or obsolete the older PDM (v1) RFC8250. I don't think this is
necessary, but could be done if the IESG finds it to be clearer.

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]).

The IANA Considerations section is empty, as this document relies on the registration
of an IPv6 destination option from RFC8250. If this document were to update or obsolete
RFC8250, then the IANA Considerations could update the reference.

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.

No new registries.

[1]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/
[2]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4858.html
[3]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7942.html
[4]: https://wiki.ietf.org/group/ops/yang-review-tools
[5]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8342.html
[6]: https://wiki.ietf.org/group/iesg/ExpertTopics
[7]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp79
[8]: https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/
[9]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3967.html
[10]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp97
[11]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8126.html
[12]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-5
[13]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.1
[14]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.2
[15]: https://authors.ietf.org/en/content-guidelines-overview
[16]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/normative-informative-references/
[17]: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/downref/

2024-05-21
06 Tommy Pauly IETF WG state changed to Submitted to IESG for Publication from WG Consensus: Waiting for Write-Up
2024-05-21
06 Tommy Pauly IESG state changed to Publication Requested from I-D Exists
2024-05-21
06 (System) Changed action holders to Warren Kumari (IESG state changed)
2024-05-21
06 Tommy Pauly Responsible AD changed to Warren Kumari
2024-05-21
06 Tommy Pauly Document is now in IESG state Publication Requested
2024-05-21
06 Tommy Pauly Tag Doc Shepherd Follow-up Underway cleared.
2024-05-21
06 Tommy Pauly
# 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?

This document received support and reviews from the WG as a whole, although
the primary reviewers and commenters were a slightly different subset from
the normally most active IPPM members. This is due to the fact that IPPM
has several different "tracks" of participation, where subsets of the community
are more focused on their own topics. However, the consensus and support
of those who did comment was pretty clear.

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

No particular controversies. Much of the development and iteration on the draft
was in trying to refine the security aspects, and going back and forth with SECDIR
reviewers.

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 discontent has been epxressed.

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)?

Yes, implementations have been tested at hackathons with results presented
at WG meetings.

## 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 is a new version of a protocol previously developed in IPPM, and
is primarily focused within the group.

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.

No formal reviews like these required.

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]?

No YANG module.

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.

No formal validation.

## 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?

I think the document is clearly written and ready for Area Director review.

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?

The document went through three rounds of SECDIR review, which helped refine
the document and address many issues. I believe this was the primary area that
needed to provide input, since this document was mainly about adding
encryption support.

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?

This is requesting Proposed Standard, which is appropriate as a new protocol
version of a standards track RFC (RFC 8250). The datatracker does reflect this.

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.

All authors have confirmed that they are not aware of any IPR related to this
document, and no other WG members have brought up any IPR.

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, all authors have confirmed their willingness to author.

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.)

No nits found.

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

There are two informative references that could be considered as normative:
- RFC4303 for IPsec ESP, which is mentioned as an option for encapsulation
- RFC9180 for HPKE; this is an informational IRTF document, but has been normatively referenced in other RFCs, like RFC9458

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 such normative references.

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, but it may be good to promote RFC9180 to a normative downref.

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 such references.

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.

This document does not change the state of any other RFC, although it could be considered
to have it update or obsolete the older PDM (v1) RFC8250. I don't think this is
necessary, but could be done if the IESG finds it to be clearer.

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]).

The IANA Considerations section is empty, as this document relies on the registration
of an IPv6 destination option from RFC8250. If this document were to update or obsolete
RFC8250, then the IANA Considerations could update the reference.

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.

No new registries.

[1]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/
[2]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4858.html
[3]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7942.html
[4]: https://wiki.ietf.org/group/ops/yang-review-tools
[5]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8342.html
[6]: https://wiki.ietf.org/group/iesg/ExpertTopics
[7]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp79
[8]: https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/
[9]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3967.html
[10]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp97
[11]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8126.html
[12]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-5
[13]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.1
[14]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.2
[15]: https://authors.ietf.org/en/content-guidelines-overview
[16]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/normative-informative-references/
[17]: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/downref/

2024-04-09
06 Tommy Pauly Notification list changed to tpauly@apple.com because the document shepherd was set
2024-04-09
06 Tommy Pauly Document shepherd changed to Tommy Pauly
2024-04-09
06 Tommy Pauly Tag Doc Shepherd Follow-up Underway set. Tag Revised I-D Needed - Issue raised by WGLC cleared.
2024-04-09
06 Tommy Pauly IETF WG state changed to WG Consensus: Waiting for Write-Up from Waiting for WG Chair Go-Ahead
2024-02-25
06 Nalini Elkins New version available: draft-ietf-ippm-encrypted-pdmv2-06.txt
2024-02-25
06 Nalini Elkins New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Nalini Elkins)
2024-02-25
06 Nalini Elkins Uploaded new revision
2024-01-30
05 Tommy Pauly Tag Revised I-D Needed - Issue raised by WGLC set.
2024-01-30
05 Tommy Pauly IETF WG state changed to Waiting for WG Chair Go-Ahead from In WG Last Call
2024-01-15
05 Chris Lonvick Request for Last Call review by SECDIR Completed: Ready. Reviewer: Chris Lonvick. Sent review to list.
2024-01-12
05 Tero Kivinen Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Chris Lonvick
2024-01-09
05 Tommy Pauly Requested Last Call review by SECDIR
2024-01-09
05 Tommy Pauly IETF WG state changed to In WG Last Call from WG Document
2023-10-22
05 Nalini Elkins New version available: draft-ietf-ippm-encrypted-pdmv2-05.txt
2023-10-22
05 (System) New version approved
2023-10-22
05 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Adnan Rashid , Ameya Deshpande , Nalini Elkins , Tommaso Pecorella , michael ackermann
2023-10-22
05 Nalini Elkins Uploaded new revision
2023-08-12
04 Chris Lonvick Request for Early review by SECDIR Completed: Not Ready. Reviewer: Chris Lonvick. Sent review to list.
2023-08-03
04 Tero Kivinen Request for Early review by SECDIR is assigned to Chris Lonvick
2023-07-29
04 Adam Montville Assignment of request for Early review by SECDIR to Adam Montville was rejected
2023-07-27
04 Tero Kivinen Request for Early review by SECDIR is assigned to Adam Montville
2023-07-24
04 Marcus Ihlar Requested Early review by SECDIR
2023-06-27
04 Nalini Elkins New version available: draft-ietf-ippm-encrypted-pdmv2-04.txt
2023-06-27
04 (System) New version approved
2023-06-27
04 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Adnan Rashid , Ameya Deshpande , Nalini Elkins , Tommaso Pecorella , michael ackermann
2023-06-27
04 Nalini Elkins Uploaded new revision
2023-03-26
03 Nalini Elkins New version available: draft-ietf-ippm-encrypted-pdmv2-03.txt
2023-03-26
03 (System) New version approved
2023-03-26
03 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Adnan Rashid , Ameya Deshpande , Nalini Elkins , Tommaso Pecorella , ippm-chairs@ietf.org, michael ackermann
2023-03-26
03 Nalini Elkins Uploaded new revision
2022-09-26
02 Nalini Elkins New version available: draft-ietf-ippm-encrypted-pdmv2-02.txt
2022-09-26
02 (System) New version approved
2022-09-26
02 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: "mackermann@bcbsm.com" , Adnan Rashid , Ameya Deshpande , Nalini Elkins , Tommaso Pecorella
2022-09-26
02 Nalini Elkins Uploaded new revision
2022-07-19
01 Marcus Ihlar Added to session: IETF-114: ippm  Fri-1230
2022-06-28
01 Adam Montville Request for Early review by SECDIR Completed: Not Ready. Reviewer: Adam Montville. Sent review to list.
2022-06-20
01 Nalini Elkins New version available: draft-ietf-ippm-encrypted-pdmv2-01.txt
2022-06-20
01 (System) New version approved
2022-06-20
01 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: "mackermann@bcbsm.com" , Adnan Rashid , Ameya Deshpande , Nalini Elkins , Tommaso Pecorella
2022-06-20
01 Nalini Elkins Uploaded new revision
2022-06-20
01 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: "mackermann@bcbsm.com" , Adnan Rashid , Ameya Deshpande , Nalini Elkins , Tommaso Pecorella
2022-06-20
01 Nalini Elkins Uploaded new revision
2022-05-27
00 Tero Kivinen Request for Early review by SECDIR is assigned to Adam Montville
2022-05-27
00 Tero Kivinen Request for Early review by SECDIR is assigned to Adam Montville
2022-05-24
00 Tommy Pauly Requested Early review by SECDIR
2022-05-24
00 Tommy Pauly Changed consensus to Yes from Unknown
2022-05-24
00 Tommy Pauly Intended Status changed to Proposed Standard from None
2022-04-18
00 Tommy Pauly This document now replaces draft-elkins-ippm-encrypted-pdmv2 instead of None
2022-04-12
00 Nalini Elkins New version available: draft-ietf-ippm-encrypted-pdmv2-00.txt
2022-04-12
00 (System) WG -00 approved
2022-04-12
00 Nalini Elkins Set submitter to "Nalini Elkins ", replaces to (none) and sent approval email to group chairs: ippm-chairs@ietf.org
2022-04-12
00 Nalini Elkins Uploaded new revision