Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP): Shared Extension Message & IANA Registry for Packet Type Allocations
draft-ietf-lisp-type-iana-06

[Ballot discuss]
* Section 4.1

"The value 15 is reserved for Experimental Use [RFC5226]"

I don't think this document should be reserving value 15 for Experimental use based on its stated intentions "a LISP shared message type for defining future extensions and conducting experiments".

RFC3692 defines the experimental values as

"  Mutually consenting devices could use
  these numbers for whatever purposes they desire, but under the
  understanding that they are reserved for generic testing purposes,
  and other implementations may use the same numbers for different
  experimental uses."

which means that devices may use any of the sub-types under 15 for experimentation and potentially collide with the "extension" uses.

I would propose that a sub range of the sub-types (e.g. 2048-4095) under type 15 be reserved for experimentation and the rest of the range (0-2047) for extensions be specified using some other IANA policy (e.g. FCFS as specified in the document).

[Ballot comment]
- 4.1, last paragraph: I'm confused by the statement that "15" is reserved for experimental use. The table says it's reserved for the LISP Shared Extension Message. I recognize that that message is in fact experimental, but I would interpret "reserved for experimental use" to indicate things that people can use for other experimental purpose.



- (nit)  Abstract: Please expand LISP on first use in the abstract (in addition to the existing expansion in the introduction.)

[Ballot comment]
I am watching for resolution of Alvaro's Discuss points.

I'm also really curious about point a in his Comments. That would be good to unravel.

[Ballot discuss]
I have a couple of points I think we should DISCUSS before moving this document forward: the intended status and the definition of the registry.

(1) Intended Status: The Datatracker indicates that the Intended RFC status for this document is Proposed Standard (as does the Shepherd WriteUp and the IETF LC), but the header on the document says Experimental.  I note that the document header was changed after a discussion on the WG list resulting from the RTG Directorate review [1], but that happened after the WGLC.  Which is the right status?

(2) LISP Packet Types Registry Definition: It seems very odd to me that the LISP Packet Types Registry uses Standard Action as the registration policy given that the LISP work is currently Experimental -- and that the other references in it would in fact be from an Experimental RFC (rfc6380).  I know there's work on rfc6830bis (in the Standards Track), but I think it would be better to have this registry defined in the base specification (rfc6833bis, in this case)...or to wait for the publication of that document to progress this one.


I think there's nothing procedurally wrong with having an Experimental RFC define a Standard Action Registry and populate part of it with references to Experimental RFC.  However, the solution just doesn't seem clean to me -- so I would like to hear the justification for the rush (and not waiting for rfc6380bis/rfc6388bis).

I have no issue with a document making use of the Code Point to describe the new LISP Shared Extension Message Type (without creating the Registry).  But given that the base LISP specification is still Experimental, then this document should be too.  There shouldn't be an issue with changing the Status of this document (in-place) once rfc6380bis/rfc6388bis progress.


There's also the issue that RFC6830 (and rfc6833bis) contain the following text: "This section will be the authoritative source for allocating LISP Type values..."  Which means that (if the registry is to be defined here), this document should at least Update RFC6830...

In summary, I think that the correct Status for this document is Experimental.  I also think that it would be better to wait for rfc6833bis to define the Registry.
 

[1] https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lisp/m1EicCexdX1GI183pba-mcHJM7g/?qid=ada479dce3c434bfaf948b0ee8240996

[Ballot discuss]
I have a couple of points I think we should DISCUSS before moving this document forward: the intended status and the definition of the registry.  Both points are intertwined.

(1) Intended Status: The Datatracker indicates that the Intended RFC status for this document is Proposed Standard (as does the Shepherd WriteUp and the IETF LC), but the header on the document says Experimental.  I note that the document header was changed after a discussion on the WG list resulting from the RTG Directorate review [1], but that happened after the WGLC.  Which is the right status?

(2) LISP Packet Types Registry Definition: It seems very odd to me that the LISP Packet Types Registry uses Standard Action as the registration policy given that the LISP work is currently Experimental -- and that the other references in it would in fact be from an Experimental RFC (rfc6380).  I know there's work on rfc6830bis (in the Standards Track), but I think it would be better to have this registry defined in the base specification (rfc6833bis, in this case)...or to wait for the publication of that document to progress this one.


I think there's nothing procedurally wrong with having an Experimental RFC define a Standard Action Registry and populate part of it with references to Experimental RFC.  However, the solution just doesn't seem clean to me -- so I would like to hear the justification for the rush (and not waiting for rfc6380bis/rfc6388bis).

I have no issue with a document making use of the Code Point to describe the new LISP Shared Extension Message Type (without creating the Registry).  But given that the base LISP specification is still Experimental, then this document should be too.  There shouldn't be an issue with changing the Status of this document (in-place) once rfc6380bis/rfc6388bis progress.


There's also the issue that RFC6830 (and rfc6833bis) contain the following text: "This section will be the authoritative source for allocating LISP Type values..."  Which means that (if the registry is to be defined here), this document should at least Update RFC6830...

In summary, I think that the correct Status for this document is Experimental.  I also think that it would be better to wait for rfc6833bis to define the Registry.
 

[1] https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lisp/m1EicCexdX1GI183pba-mcHJM7g/?qid=ada479dce3c434bfaf948b0ee8240996

[Ballot comment]
a. The Introduction justifies the extension as being used for experiments: "Because of the limited type space [RFC6830] and the need to conduct experiments to assess new LISP extensions, this document specifies a shared LISP extension message type".  It seems clear later in the text that the intent of the new message type is not just for experimentation, but that in fact the intent is for new functionality to be deployed using it.  Is that correct?  If it is, then please make it clear -- if not, then I would like to see how the authors propose a transition to happen between the experimental space and the production one.

b. The IANA Considerations Section says that "The value 15 is reserved for Experimental Use [RFC5226]."  But it is being assigned to the new LISP Shared Extension Message.

(Via drafts-lastcall@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

The IANA Services Operator has completed its review of draft-ietf-lisp-type-iana-04.txt. If any part of this review is inaccurate, please let us know.

The IANA Services Operator understands that, upon approval of this document, there are two actions which we must complete.

First, a new registry is to be created called the LISP Packet Types registry. This will be a new registry on the list of all IANA maintained protocol parameter registries located at:

https://www.iana.org/protocols

The registry consists of 16 values 0 - 15. The registration rule for values 0 - 14 is Standards Action as defined by RFC 5226. The registration rule for value 15 is Experimental Use as defined by RFC 5226.

There are initial registrations in the new registry as follows:

Message Code Reference
================= == =======Reserved 0 [RFC6830]
LISP Map-Request 1 [RFC6830]
LISP Map-Reply 2 [RFC6830]
LISP Map-Register 3 [RFC6830]
LISP Map-Notify 4 [RFC6830]
LISP Encapsulated Control Message 8 [RFC6830]
LISP Shared Extension Message 15 [ RFC-to-be ]

Second, a new subregistry of the LISP Packet Types registry created in task 1 above is to be created called the LISP Shared Extension Message type Sub-types registry. The new subregistry is to be managed via First Come, First Served as defined by RFC 5226.

There are no initial registrations in the new subregistry.

The IANA Services Operator understands that these two actions are the only ones 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 only to confirm what actions will be performed.


Thank you,

Sabrina Tanamal
IANA Services Specialist
PTI

The following Last Call announcement was sent out:

From: The IESG
To: "IETF-Announce"
CC: lisp-chairs@ietf.org, lisp@ietf.org, "Luigi Iannone" , draft-ietf-lisp-type-iana@ietf.org, ggx@gigix.net, db3546@att.com
Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org
Sender:
Subject: Last Call:  (LISP Shared Extension Message & IANA Registry for LISP Packet Type Allocations) to Proposed Standard


The IESG has received a request from the Locator/ID Separation Protocol
WG (lisp) to consider the following document:
- 'LISP Shared Extension Message & IANA Registry for LISP Packet Type
  Allocations'
  as Proposed 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
ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2017-01-17. 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 defines a registry for LISP Packet Type allocations.
  It also specifies a LISP shared message type for defining future
  extensions and conducting experiments without consuming a LISP packet
  type codepoint for each extension.





The file can be obtained via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-lisp-type-iana/

IESG discussion can be tracked via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-lisp-type-iana/ballot/


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


The document contains these normative downward references.
See RFC 3967 for additional information:
    rfc6830: The Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP) (Experimental - IETF stream)
Note that some of these references may already be listed in the acceptable Downref Registry.

draft-ietf-lisp-iana-registry-03.txt Document Write-up

As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document Shepherd Write-Up.


(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?

      This document targets to follow standard track, hence aiming at the
      initial level of "Proposed Standard".
      I personally argued with the authors that usually documents
      aiming at creating IANA registries are "informational".
      Yet, as the authors rightfully pointed out, the document also
      proposes the experimental packet format, for which standard
      track looks more appropriate.
      As a shepherd of the document I am fine keeping this
      intended status. To be noted that the document passed the
      WGLC with the such intended status. No concern was raised by the
      WG members. As for the IETF process, it is up to the
      IESG to assign the most appropriate status to this document.



(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:

Technical Summary:

      The document proposes to create two new registries, namely the
      "LISP Packet Types" and the "LISP Experimental Message Sub-Type".
      In the LISP architecture, there are a bunch of control messages
      that are identified via an 4-bit "Type" field. While all of those
      messages are defined in RFC6830 (the base LISP specifications), no
      formal request to IANA to create a registry can be found in that
      document. This document fixes the issue by formally asking the
      creation of such registry.
      Additionally, the document suggest to reserve one of these "Type"
      values for experimental messages, that can be further identified
      through an additional 12-bit "Sub-Type" field.
      This would allow to experiment with new control messages before
      asking for a new allocation, helping preserving the limited "Type"
      space, while avoiding hindering LISP evolution.
      Thus, the document defines the format of the experimental
      control message, where the first 4-bits, identifying the
      message as an actual experimental message, are used exactly like
      any other LISP control message. These 4-bits are followed
      by the 12-bits "Sub-Type" field, while the rest of the
      message will depend on the specific experiment.


Working Group Summary:

      The document has been welcome right away by the WG.
      The proposed "LISP Packet Types" registry was indeed something
      the WG felt as missing. Furthermore, the additional idea to reserve
      one type of experimental use, with a sub-type extension, has been also
      supported right away by the WG.


Document Quality:

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, 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?

      There are several independent and inter-operable implementations
    already using the requested initial content of the  "LISP
      Packet Types" registry. The "LISP Experimental Message Sub-Type"
      registry is provided for future use, but a few individual submissions
      already propose their use.
      Furthermore, LISPLab implementation (http://www.lisp-lab.org/)
      uses the new Experimental message to implemented new LISP control
      messages.


Personnel:

Who is the Document Shepherd?

        Luigi Iannone


Who is the Responsible Area Director?

          Deborah Brungard .



(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 carefully the document. The text is clear and
      I have checked the mailinglist and meeting minutes and
      publication WG consensus has been reached appropriately.
      I checked the ID nits (output provided  on point 11) resulting
    in a downref as described later.


(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or
breadth of the reviews that have been performed?

      As the document shepherd I have no concerns.



(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.

      No broader review is required for this document.



(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.

      As the document shepherd I have no concerns.



(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?

      All authors have made conforming IPR disclosure.



(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 disclosures have been filed.



(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 has been clear consensus behind this document,
    showing that the WG as a whole understands and agrees with it.



(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.)

      Nobody did show discontent nor threatened an appeal.



(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.

idnits 2.14.01  /var/www/.idnits

tmp/draft-ietf-lisp-type-iana-02.txt:

  Checking boilerplate required by RFC 5378 and the IETF Trust (see
  http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info):
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

    No issues found here.

  Checking nits according to http://www.ietf.org/id-info/1id-guidelines.txt:
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

    No issues found here.

  Checking nits according to http://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist :
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

    No issues found here.

  Miscellaneous warnings:
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

  -- The document date (September 28, 2016) is 22 days in the past.  Is this
    intentional?


  Checking references for intended status: Proposed Standard
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (See RFCs 3967 and 4897 for information about using normative references
    to lower-maturity documents in RFCs)

  ** Downref: Normative reference to an Experimental RFC: RFC 6830


    Summary: 1 error (**), 0 flaws (~~), 0 warnings (==), 1 comment (--).

    Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about
    the items above.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review
criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.

      No formal review is required.



(13) Have all references within this document been identified as
either normative or informative?

      All references are identified as 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 completion?

  There are no normative references in unclear state.



(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.

  There is one single downward normative reference toward RFC 6830
    (see as well the idnits output above).



(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.

  No existing RFC's status will change due to the publication
  of 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
5226).

      The document proposes to create two new registries, namely the
      "LISP Packet Types" and the "LISP Experimental Message Sub-Type".
      For the former, detailed specification of initial content is
      provided in the document. For the latter, no initial content is
      demanded, hence leaving the registry empty, as clearly stated
      by the authors.



(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.

      No expert review is required.
      For the "LISP Experimental Message Sub-Type" registry the document
      proposes to use a simple First-Come First-Served policy.
      For the "LISP Packet Types" registry the document
      proposes go through standard action.



(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.

  The document does not contain anything written in a formal
  language, hence, no validation and/or check has been
  performed.

draft-ietf-lisp-iana-registry-02.txt Document Write-up

As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document Shepherd Write-Up.


(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?

      This document targets to follow standard track, hence aiming at the
      initial level of "Proposed Standard".
      I personally argued with the authors that usually documents
      aiming at creating IANA registries are "informational".
      Yet, as the authors rightfully pointed out, the document also
      proposes the experimental packet format, for which standard
      track looks more appropriate.
      As a shepherd of the document I am fine keeping this
      intended status. To be noted that the document passed the
      WGLC with the such intended status. No concern was raised by the
      WG members. As for the IETF process, it is up to the
      IESG to assign the most appropriate status to this document.



(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:

Technical Summary:

      The document proposes to create two new registries, namely the
      "LISP Packet Types" and the "LISP Experimental Message Sub-Type".
      In the LISP architecture, there are a bunch of control messages
      that are identified via an 4-bit "Type" field. While all of those
      messages are defined in RFC6830 (the base LISP specifications), no
      formal request to IANA to create a registry can be found in that
      document. This document fixes the issue by formally asking the
      creation of such registry.
      Additionally, the document suggest to reserve one of these "Type"
      values for experimental messages, that can be further identified
      through an additional 12-bit "Sub-Type" field.
      This would allow to experiment with new control messages before
      asking for a new allocation, helping preserving the limited "Type"
      space, while avoiding hindering LISP evolution.
      Thus, the document defines the format of the experimental
      control message, where the first 4-bits, identifying the
      message as an actual experimental message, are used exactly like
      any other LISP control message. These 4-bits are followed
      by the 12-bits "Sub-Type" field, while the rest of the
      message will depend on the specific experiment.


Working Group Summary:

      The document has been welcome right away by the WG.
      The proposed "LISP Packet Types" registry was indeed something
      the WG felt as missing. Furthermore, the additional idea to reserve
      one type of experimental use, with a sub-type extension, has been also
      supported right away by the WG.


Document Quality:

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, 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?

      There are several independent and inter-operable implementations
    already using the requested initial content of the  "LISP
      Packet Types" registry. The "LISP Experimental Message Sub-Type"
      registry is provided for future use, but a few individual submissions
      already propose their use.
      Furthermore, LISPLab implementation (http://www.lisp-lab.org/)
      uses the new Experimental message to implemented new LISP control
      messages.


Personnel:

Who is the Document Shepherd?

        Luigi Iannone


Who is the Responsible Area Director?

          Deborah Brungard .



(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 carefully the document. The text is clear and
      I have checked the mailinglist and meeting minutes and
      publication WG consensus has been reached appropriately.
      I checked the ID nits (output provided  on point 11) resulting
    in a downref as described later.


(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or
breadth of the reviews that have been performed?

      As the document shepherd I have no concerns.



(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.

      No broader review is required for this document.



(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.

      As the document shepherd I have no concerns.



(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?

      All authors have made conforming IPR disclosure.



(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 disclosures have been filed.



(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 has been clear consensus behind this document,
    showing that the WG as a whole understands and agrees with it.



(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.)

      Nobody did show discontent nor threatened an appeal.



(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.

idnits 2.14.01  /var/www/.idnits

tmp/draft-ietf-lisp-type-iana-02.txt:

  Checking boilerplate required by RFC 5378 and the IETF Trust (see
  http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info):
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

    No issues found here.

  Checking nits according to http://www.ietf.org/id-info/1id-guidelines.txt:
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

    No issues found here.

  Checking nits according to http://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist :
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

    No issues found here.

  Miscellaneous warnings:
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

  -- The document date (September 28, 2016) is 22 days in the past.  Is this
    intentional?


  Checking references for intended status: Proposed Standard
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (See RFCs 3967 and 4897 for information about using normative references
    to lower-maturity documents in RFCs)

  ** Downref: Normative reference to an Experimental RFC: RFC 6830


    Summary: 1 error (**), 0 flaws (~~), 0 warnings (==), 1 comment (--).

    Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about
    the items above.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review
criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.

      No formal review is required.



(13) Have all references within this document been identified as
either normative or informative?

      All references are identified as 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 completion?

  There are no normative references in unclear state.



(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.

  There is one single downward normative reference toward RFC 6830
    (see as well the idnits output above).



(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.

  No existing RFC's status will change due to the publication
  of 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
5226).

      The document proposes to create two new registries, namely the
      "LISP Packet Types" and the "LISP Experimental Message Sub-Type".
      For the former, detailed specification of initial content is
      provided in the document. For the latter, no initial content is
      demanded, hence leaving the registry empty, as clearly stated
      by the authors.



(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.

      No expert review is required.
      For the "LISP Experimental Message Sub-Type" registry the document
      proposes to use a simple First-Come First-Served policy.
      For the "LISP Packet Types" registry the document
      proposes go through standard action.



(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.

  The document does not contain anything written in a formal
  language, hence, no validation and/or check has been
  performed.