Skip to main content

Shepherd writeup

(1) What type of RFC is being requested?

Informational -- this document is for the general information of the
Internet community and does not have protocol or requirements.

(2) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document Announcement

Technical Summary:

Due to the lack of proper IPv6 support in some popular Virtual Private
Network (VPN) products, traffic meant to be transferred over a VPN
connection may leak out of such connection and be transferred in the
clear from the local network to the final destination.

This document discusses some scenarios in which such leakages may
occur and discusses possible mitigations.

Working Group Summary:

There was no drama in the WG regarding this draft.

Document Quality: The document is well written and easy to understand.
There was good support in the WG for progressing this document. Merike
Kaeo in particular provided good review and comments.


Warren Kumari is the Document Shepherd. Joel Jaeggli is RAD.

(3) Briefly describe the review of this document that was performed by
the Document Shepherd. The Document Shepherd followed the document as
it progressed though the WG, and reviewed content as it was revised.

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

(5) Do portions of the document need review from a particular or from
broader perspective? Nope.

(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? None.

(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. Yes.

(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? No
IPR disclosures have been filed (phew!)

(9) How solid is the WG consensus behind this document? The most
involved / active WG participants did respond and their comments were
supportive. The rest of the WG was silent (we are working on this!).

(10) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme
discontent? No one made grumpy face...

(11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this
document. None.

(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review
criteria. N/A.

(13) All references normative or informative? Yes.

(14) Are there normative references to unpublished things? No - all
normative references are to (published) RFCs.

(15) Are there downward normative references (see RFC 3967)? If so,
list these downward references to support the Area Director in the
Last Call procedure. None.

(16) Will publication of this document change the status of any
existing RFCs? Nope.

(17) Describe the Document Shepherd's review of the IANA
considerations section. No IANA action requested or required. This
matches the text of the document.

(18) List any new IANA registries that require Expert Review for
future allocations. None.

(19) Describe reviews and automated checks of formal language. N/A.