Skip to main content

Shepherd writeup
draft-ietf-opsec-lla-only

Document Shepherd Write-Up

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>
Type of RFC Requested: Informational
Why: This document provides information to the operator community regarding the
advantages and disadvantages of exclusively using LLA addresses on
infrastructure links in a network. This document neither prescribes a preferred
method of deployment nor makes any changes to protocols. </Shepherd>

(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.

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?

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?

Personnel

  Who is the Document Shepherd? Who is the Responsible Area
  Director?
<Shepherd>
Technical Summary
In an IPv6 network it is possible to use only link-local addresses on
infrastructure links between routers.  This document discusses the
advantages and disadvantages of this approach to help the decision
process for a given network.

Working Group Summary
This document had a bumpy ride within the working group. There is rough
consensus that the document provides valuable insight into advantages and
disadvantages of the network Link-Local approach and that the content it
includes is technically correct. The bumps for this document have been driven
by the believe that running a network based upon this approach is a general bad
idea, and that even existence of this document provides perception it is an
IETF supported approach.

Document Quality
The document is technically correct as seen by many reviews on the WG email
list. The document does not discuss a new protocol or implementation of a new
protocol. The document provides advantages and disadvantages of using IPv6
Link-Local Addresses within an IPv6 Network. It has had thorough review by WG
reviewers, with discussions inside the WG email list

Personnel
Area Director: Joel Jaeggli
Shepherd: Gunter Van de Velde
</Shepherd>

(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>
Document is ready for IESG review
</Shepherd>

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

<Shepherd>
The document has been sufficiently reviewed by knowledgeable reviewers of the
OPSEC WG community </Shepherd>

(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>
No special additional review required
</Shepherd>

(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>
In the OPSEC WG people have stated that eventhough they do not like the LLA
approach, that here is value and support in publication of the advantages and
disadvantages, because proper addressing is a key network architecture
question. As Shepherd I see a need for documenting this in an IETF document as
it is a question when architecting a Network. </Shepherd>

(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>
IPR reminder sent out on 11 February.
Authors confirmed to not be aware of IPR attached to the document.
</Shepherd>

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

<Shepherd>
None
</Shepherd>

(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>
I believe there is strong consensus that it is good to have a repository of
advantages and disadvantages. There is agreement that the LLA draft should for
sure not recommend the addressing approach discussed. </Shepherd>

(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>
No threatening of appeal, or extreme discontent (some discontent is seen, but
of not extreme level) </Shepherd>

(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.

<Shepherd>
-06 has few idnits of informational reference matter
idnits 2.13.01

tmp/draft-ietf-opsec-lla-only-06.txt:
   Attempted to download rfc0495 state...
   Failure fetching the file, proceeding without it.
   Attempted to download rfc0792 state...
   Failure fetching the file, proceeding without it.

  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 (January 6, 2014) is 36 days in the past.  Is this
     intentional?

  Checking references for intended status: Informational
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

  == Unused Reference: 'RFC0792' is defined on line 353, but no explicit
     reference was found in the text

  == Outdated reference: A later version (-02) exists of
     draft-ietf-opsec-bgp-security-01

     Summary: 0 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 2 warnings (==), 1 comment (--).

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

</Shepherd>

(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review
criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.
<Shepherd>
This document is purely informational, no new protocol design/architecture,
mibs, etc discussed. </Shepherd>

(13) Have all references within this document been identified as
either normative or informative?
<Shepherd>
yes
</Shepherd>
(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>
No normative references
</Shepherd>

(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>
There are no normative references
</Shepherd>

(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>
No, the publication will not change any existing RFCs
</Shepherd>

(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>
No IANA considerations within the document
</Shepherd>

(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>
No IANA considerations within the document
</Shepherd>

(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>
Informational document using traditional English.
</Shepherd>
Back