Skip to main content

Shepherd writeup

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 24 February 2012.

(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?

<>Shepherd comment<>
<>/Shepherd comment<>

(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

  Relevant content can frequently be found in the abstract
  and/or introduction of the document. If not, this may be
  an indication that there are deficiencies in the abstract
  or introduction.

<>Shepherd comment<>
IPv6 offers a much larger address space than that of its IPv4 counterpart.  An
IPv6 subnet of size /64 can (in theory) accommodate approximately 1.844 * 10^19
hosts, thus resulting in a much lower host density (#hosts/#addresses) than is
typical in IPv4 networks, where a site typically has 65,000 or less unique
addresses.  As a result, it is widely assumed that it would take a tremendous
effort to perform address scanning attacks against IPv6 networks, and therefore
brute-force IPv6 address scanning attacks have been considered unfeasible. 
This document updates RFC 5157, which first discussed this assumption, by
providing further analysis on how traditional address scanning techniques apply
to IPv6 networks, and exploring some additional techniques that can be employed
for IPv6 network reconnaissance.  In doing so, this document formally obsoletes
RFC 5157. <>/Shepherd comment<>

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

<>Shepherd comment<>
No controversy. Document went pretty smooth in the WG
<>/Shepherd comment<>

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?

<>Shepherd comment<>
The content is Informational experience and hence require no vendor
implementation. <>/Shepherd comment<>


  Who is the Document Shepherd? Who is the Responsible Area

<>Shepherd comment<>
Document Shepherd: Gunter Van de Velde
Responsible Area AD: Joel Jaeggli
<>/Shepherd comment<>

(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.

<>Shepherd comment<>
Document Shepherd followed the document through its creation and this document
is ready for publication. A final 1 week sanity check was requested on 21 April
and WG consensus was voiced on document value to the list. <>/Shepherd comment<>

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

<>Shepherd comment<>
Depth and technical details are satisfactory
<>/Shepherd comment<>

(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.

<>Shepherd comment<>
This document does not need broader review due to the nature of the document.
<>/Shepherd comment<>

(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.

<>Shepherd comment<>
No specific concerns
<>/Shepherd comment<>

(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.

<>Shepherd comment<>
Fernando Gont: confirmed on list no awareness IPR.
Tim Chown: Confirmed to OPSEC chair through direct email that he is not aware
of any IPR <>/Shepherd comment<>

(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document?
If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR

<>Shepherd comment<>
<>/Shepherd comment<>

(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?

<>Shepherd comment<>
The WG agrees that this is a good document providing fine information.
<>/Shepherd comment<>

(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.)

<>Shepherd comment<>
No particular negative emotions were expressed during the creation of this
document <>/Shepherd comment<>

(11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this
document. (See and the Internet-Drafts
Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be

<>Shepherd comment<>
idnits were checked on 20 April and sent to authors for verification. Fernando
commented that all idnits have been fully checked. <>/Shepherd comment<>

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

<>Shepherd comment<>
No such reviews are needed
<>/Shepherd comment<>

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

<>Shepherd comment<>
<>/Shepherd comment<>

(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?

<>Shepherd comment<>
All Normative references are ready
<>/Shepherd comment<>

(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.

<>Shepherd comment<>
<>/Shepherd comment<>

(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.

<>Shepherd comment<>
This document intends to obsolete RFC 5157. This is indicated
<>/Shepherd comment<>

(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).

<>Shepherd comment<>
This document makes no particular IANA considerations
<>/Shepherd comment<>

(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.

<>Shepherd comment<>
This document makes no particular IANA allocation requests
<>/Shepherd comment<>

(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.

<>Shepherd comment<>
IETF idnits tool
<>/Shepherd comment<>