OSPFv3 over IPv4 for IPv6 Transition
draft-ietf-ospf-transition-to-ospfv3-12

[Ballot comment]
I do think this is a good mechanism to transition from IPv4-only OSPFv2 to dual-stack capable OSPFv3. Thanks for quickly addressing the issues in my DISCUSS.

[Ballot comment]
I support this document going forward.

However, in Section 4 it says:

  Consequently, an OSPFv3 packet
  transported within an IPv4 packet requires IPsec to provide
  authentication and confidentiality.  Further work such as [ipsecospf]
  would be required to support IPsec protection for OSPFv3 over IPv4
  transport.

And I had trouble understanding what you meant by this, exactly. IPsec is required, but is not currently completely enough defined for OSPF to make this possible? If so, I'd suggest using the words:

  Consequently, an OSPFv3 packet
  transported within an IPv4 packet requires IPsec to provide
  authentication and confidentiality.  However,  further work such as [ipsecospf]
  would be required to support IPsec protection for OSPFv3 over IPv4
  transport.

But maybe I am misunderstanding what was meant here.

[Ballot comment]


section 4: Just checking that I've gotten this right. Is the
following correct?

If RFC7166 is being used then there is never a need to modify
packets in a way that would break the authentication. In other
words, am I correct that this draft doesn't envisage any middlebox
changing an OSPF packet in between the source (of authentication)
and destination(s)?

If that is correct, then we're good.

If that is not correct, then I think more needs to be said in
section 4, as it is not at all clear to me how a source could emit a
packet that a middlebox could modify, without having to share the
symmetric secret used for RFC7166 authentication with that
middlebox, which would be fairly clearly undesirable.

[Ballot discuss]
I do think this is a good mechanism to transition from IPv4-only OSPFv2 to dual-stack capable OSPFv3 and I intend to switch to a Yes once my discuss points are addressed.

* The calculation for the checksum field in the OSPFv3 packet is not specified in this document. The RFC5340 checksum calculation uses the IPv6 pseudo-header mechanism for upper layer checksums as specified in Section 8.1 of RFC2460. Since that obviously won't work here (as there are no source and dest IPv6 addresses) some different mechanism needs to be specified here.
* (based on the above) Why doesn't this document update RFC5340?

[Ballot comment]
I do have one question that I am curious about. Can this mechanism be run alongside OSPFv2 on the same router? If so, how does the demultiplexing take place to dispatch the packet to either the OSPFv2 or the OSPFv3-over-IPv4 implementation (as the endpoints are potentially the same and the IP proto number 89 is usually dispatched to OSPFv2)? Does it require inserting some sort of shim in the OSPFv2 implementation to further dispatch on the version number octet?

[Ballot comment]
Nit: „Further work such as [ipsecospf] would be required to support IPsec protection for OSPFv3 over IPv4 transport.“ -> I guess that should mean OSPFv2 here...?

[Ballot comment]
I have a couple of comments that I want to see addressed before publication; I don't think they raise to a DISCUSS, but are not minor.  …and a couple of nits…

Comments:

1. I think there's an rfc2119 conflict in Section 3.1. (Source Address); the text says: "All OSPFv3 routers on the link SHOULD share the same IPv4 subnet for IPv4 transport to function correctly…Accordingly, an OSPFv3 router implementation MAY support adjacencies with OSPFv3 neighbors on different IPv4 subnets."  I think this text presents a conflict because the support of adjacencies in different IPv4 subnets is optional (MAY), while the "SHOULD" implies a much stronger requirement.  Suggestion: s/SHOULD/should

2. Section 3.3. (Operation over Virtual Links): "…it is RECOMMENDED to use the IP transport matching the address family in OSPF routing domains requiring virtual links."  This sentence is wrong because (as you said in the previous one) "If IPv4 transport, as specified herein, is used for IPv6 address families, virtual links cannot be supported."  IOW, the IP transport for IPv6 AFs MUST be IPv6.  "RECOMMENDED" implies that there may be a case where it is ok not to do it, that that is not the case here.


Nits:

n1. In the Introduction, "…because both IPv4 and IPv6 address families can be advertised using either IPv4 or IPv6", I think you meant "IPv4 or IPv6 transport".

n2. This statement is superfluous because (to me) you're comparing apples and oranges: " Unlike 6to4 encapsulation [RFC3056] that tunnels IPv6 traffic through an IPv4 network".

n2. Section 4. (IPv4-only Use Case) is ok, but it seems out of place.  Maybe put it right after the Introduction, or make it a subsection of it.

[Ballot comment]
This was nice work.

I did have one question - I don't think it would be a likely problem, but is it worth pointing out that you're taking OSPFv3 payloads that might have been sized for IPv6, and encapsulating them as IPv4 payloads that might have a smaller MTU?

If you tell me this isn't a problem, I'll believe you, of course, but I needed to ask :-)

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

IANA has reviewed draft-ietf-ospf-transition-to-ospfv3-07.txt, which is currently in Last Call, and has the following comments:

We understand that this document doesn't require any IANA actions.

While it's often helpful for a document's IANA Considerations section to remain in place upon publication even if there are no actions, if the authors strongly prefer to remove it, IANA does not object.

If this assessment is not accurate, please respond as soon as possible.

Thank you,

Sabrina Tanamal
IANA Specialist
ICANN

(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?

      An Internet Standard Track RFC is being requested and is indicated in the
      title page header.

(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:

      This document specifies a mechanism to transport OSPFv3 packets over IPv4
      routing domain using the existing OSPFv3 Address Family extension. It
      simplifies transition from an OSPFv2 IPv4-only routing domain to an
      OSPFv3 dual-stack routing domain. It updates RFC 5838 to support virtual
      links in the IPv4 unicast address family when using OSPFv3 over IPv4.

Working Group Summary:

    This document brings in deployment benefit with little change to OSPFv3
    protocol and no impact to IPv4 transport. It received strong support
    for WG acceptance. There has not been any more comments since WGLC.

Document Quality:

      Most questions were raised and addressed during the I.D stage.
      Since then the draft is stable, without changes to the technical
      solution for more than six months.

Personnel:

      Wenhu Lu is the Document Shepherd.
      Alia Atlas is the Responsible Area Director.

(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.

    The document shepherd has reviewed each revision of the document
    and followed the discussion on the OSPF mailing list.


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

      No.

(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.

(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.

      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. If not, explain why?

    Yes.

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

      No.

(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 is consensus from the WG that this document can progress.

(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.)

      No.

(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.

      Nits are all resolved.

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

      Not applicable.

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

      Yes.

(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?
 
      No.

(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.

      No.

(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.

      The email discussion that leads to revision 05, 06, 07, 08 and 09:

On Fri, Jun 17, 2016 at 6:23 AM, Acee Lindem (acee)  wrote:
Thanks Helen!

From: Helen Chen
Date: Friday, June 17, 2016 at 9:08 AM
To: Acee Lindem , Alexander Okonnikov , Ran Atkinson , Wenhu Lu
Cc: "draft-ietf-ospf-transition-to-ospfv3@ietf.org"
Subject: RE: Mail regarding draft-ietf-ospf-transition-to-ospfv3

Hi Acee,

Thanks for the quick responses.  I uploaded the change.

Name:                  draft-ietf-ospf-transition-to-ospfv3

Revision:              09

Title:                      OSPFv3 over IPv4 for IPv6 Transition

Document date:              2016-06-17

Group:                  ospf

Pages:                  10

URL:            https://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ospf-transition-to-ospfv3-09.txt

Status:        https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ospf-transition-to-ospfv3/

Htmlized:      https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ospf-transition-to-ospfv3-09

Diff:          https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-ospf-transition-to-ospfv3-09


Thanks,
Helen

From: Acee Lindem (acee) [mailto:acee@cisco.com]
Sent: Friday, June 17, 2016 8:24 AM
To: Acee Lindem (acee) ; Alexander Okonnikov ; Randal Atkinson ; Wenhu Lu ; Ing-Wher (Helen) Chen
Cc: draft-ietf-ospf-transition-to-ospfv3@ietf.org
Subject: Re: Mail regarding draft-ietf-ospf-transition-to-ospfv3

Hi Helen,

Can we add the statement to the second paragraph:

    “When OSPFv3 adjacencies on different IPv4 subnets are supported, Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (BFD) [RFC 5881]) cannot be used for adjacency loss detection since BFD is restricted to a single subnet.”

Thanks,
Acee



From: Acee Lindem
Date: Thursday, June 16, 2016 at 7:33 PM
To: Alexander Okonnikov , Ran Atkinson , Wenhu Lu , Helen Chen
Cc: "draft-ietf-ospf-transition-to-ospfv3@ietf.org"
Subject: Re: Mail regarding draft-ietf-ospf-transition-to-ospfv3
Resent-From:
Resent-To: Acee Lindem , Helen Chen , Ran Atkinson
Resent-Date: Thursday, June 16, 2016 at 7:33 PM



From: Alexander Okonnikov
Date: Thursday, June 16, 2016 at 7:12 PM
To: Ran Atkinson , Wenhu Lu , Helen Chen , Acee Lindem
Cc: "draft-ietf-ospf-transition-to-ospfv3@ietf.org"
Subject: Re: Mail regarding draft-ietf-ospf-transition-to-ospfv3
Resent-From:
Resent-To: Acee Lindem , Helen Chen , Ran Atkinson
Resent-Date: Thursday, June 16, 2016 at 7:12 PM

Is my understanding correct that section 3.1 implies: if two neighbors are in different subnets then BFD session might not be established (in case BFD implementation closely adhere RFC 5881)?

Actually, we could add a caveat that BFD cannot be used to the second paragraph since it is not supported across subnets.
Thanks,
Acee



Thank you.


17 июня 2016 г., 1:55 +0300, Acee Lindem (acee) , писал:

Hi Alex,

Since we did not want to solve all these types of incompatibilities with IPv4, we have the same restriction for OSPFv3 over IPv4:

3.1.  Source Address

    For OSPFv3 over IPv4, the source address is the primary IPv4
    address for the interface over which the packet is transmitted.
    All OSPFv3 routers on the link SHOULD share the same IPv4 subnet
    for IPv4 transport to function correctly.

    While OSPFv2 operates on a subnet, OSPFv3 operates on a link
    [RFC5340].  Accordingly, an OSPFv3 router implementation MAY
    support adjacencies with OSPFv3 neighbors on different IPv4
    subnets.  If this is supported, the IPv4 data plane MUST resolve
    IPv4 addresses to layer-2 addresses using Address Resolution
    Protocol (ARP) on multi-access networks and point-to-point over LAN
    [RFC5309] for direct next-hops on different IPv4 subnets.


Thanks,
Acee
From: Alexander Okonnikov
Date: Thursday, June 16, 2016 at 6:49 PM
To: Ran Atkinson , Wenhu Lu , Helen Chen , Acee Lindem
Cc: "draft-ietf-ospf-transition-to-ospfv3@ietf.org"
Subject: Re: Mail regarding draft-ietf-ospf-transition-to-ospfv3


Hello Acee,

I doubt about follow statement from RFC 5881:


6. Addressing Issues

...
On a multiaccess network, BFD Control packets MUST be transmitted
with source and destination addresses that are part of the subnet
(addressed from and to interfaces on the subnet).
...


17 июня 2016 г., 1:29 +0300, Acee Lindem (acee) , писал:

Hi Alex,
If one is using IPv4 transport you’d presumably need to use IPv4 BFD so I know that this draft changes anything. Hence, you’d wouldn’t need any changes to RFC 5881. What am I missing?
Thanks,
Acee

From: Alexander Okonnikov
Date: Thursday, June 16, 2016 at 5:28 PM
To: Acee Lindem , Ran Atkinson , Wenhu Lu , Helen Chen
Cc: "draft-ietf-ospf-transition-to-ospfv3@ietf.org"
Subject: RE: Mail regarding draft-ietf-ospf-transition-to-ospfv3


Hello all,

I have thought that as soon as OSPFv3 will be allowed to establish session with neighbor in different subnet, note about usage of BFD may need to be added. Currently RFC 5881 says that source and destination should be from the same subnet. I guess that it would be right to update RFC 5881 in this part (to relax this rule), but before it will happen (if any), it is better to clarify this point here.

Thank you.


25 мая 2016 г., 16:19 +0300, Ing-Wher (Helen) Chen , писал:

Actually, Acee is the thoughtful one.

Nonetheless, we thank you for your review.

Thanks,
Helen


-----Original Message-----
From: Alexander Okonnikov [mailto:alexander.okonnikov@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, May 24, 2016 4:39 PM
To: Ing-Wher (Helen) Chen ; Acee Lindem (acee)
; Randal Atkinson ; Wenhu Lu
wrote:
Here's the latest version of the draft, version -06, which includes a new acknowledgment section to thank Alexander for his comments.  Thanks Alexander!

Name:          draft-ietf-ospf-transition-to-ospfv3
Revision:      07
Title:          OSPFv3 over IPv4 for IPv6 Transition
Document date:  2016-05-24
Group:          ospf
Pages:          10
URL:            https://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ospf-transition-to-ospfv3-07.txt
Status:        https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ospf-transition-to-ospfv3/
Htmlized:      https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ospf-transition-to-ospfv3-07
Diff:          https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-ospf-transition-to-ospfv3-07

Thanks,
Helen

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ing-Wher (Helen) Chen [mailto:ichen@kuatrotech.com]
> Sent: Monday, May 23, 2016 11:38 AM
> To: Acee Lindem (acee) ; Randal Atkinson
>
> Cc: Alexander Okonnikov ; draft-ietf-
> ospf-transition-to-ospfv3@ietf.org
> Subject: RE: Mail regarding draft-ietf-ospf-transition-to-ospfv3
>
> I made the suggested changes, including Ran's edit, to Section 3.1 and
> submitted a new revision.  The correct new version is -06 (please ignore
> version -05), and the diff between -04 and -06 is here:
>
>  ietf-ospf-transition-to-ospfv3-04.txt&url2=https://www.ietf.org/id/draft-
> ietf-ospf-transition-to-ospfv3-06.txt>
>
> Name:        draft-ietf-ospf-transition-to-ospfv3
> Revision:    06
> Title:                OSPFv3 over IPv4 for IPv6 Transition
> Document date:        2016-05-23
> Group:                ospf
> Pages:                10
> URL:            https://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ospf-transition-
> to-ospfv3-06.txt
> Status:        https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ospf-transition-to-
> ospfv3/
> Htmlized:      https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ospf-transition-to-ospfv3-
> 06
> Diff:          https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-ospf-transition-to-
> ospfv3-06
>
> Thanks,
> Helen
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Acee Lindem (acee) [mailto:acee@cisco.com]
> > Sent: Sunday, May 22, 2016 4:41 PM
> > To: Randal Atkinson
> > Cc: Ing-Wher (Helen) Chen ; Alexander
> Okonnikov
> > ; draft-ietf-ospf-transition-to-
> > ospfv3@ietf.org
> > Subject: Re: Mail regarding draft-ietf-ospf-transition-to-ospfv3
> >
> > Hi Ran,
> > Sounds good to me.
> > Thanks,
> > Acee
> >
> > On 5/22/16, 2:51 PM, "Randal Atkinson"  wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >> On 19May2016, at 12:49, Acee Lindem (acee)
> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> Hi Helen,
> > >>
> > >> I agree. Though I missed the context to Alex’s comment in my reply,
> > >> I actually meant to add rather than replace as you are proposing.
> > >>
> > >> Thanks,
> > >> Acee
> > >>
> > >> On 5/19/16, 11:25 AM, "Ing-Wher (Helen) Chen"
> >
> > >>wrote:
> > >>
> > >>> How about the following text for Section 3.1, in its entirety?  (I
> > >>>think  it's  important to emphasize the normal case.)
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> For OSPFv3 over IPv4, the source address is the primary IPv4
> > >>> address for the interface over which the packet is transmitted.
> > >>> All OSPFv3 routers on the link SHOULD share the same IPv4 subnet
> > >>> for
> > >>> IPv4 transport to function correctly.
> > >>>
> > >>> An OSPFv3 router implementation MAY support adjacencies with
> > >>> neighbors on different IPv4 subnets since OSPFv3 runs on a link
> > >>> rather than on a subnet [RFC5340]. If this is supported, the IPv4
> > >>> data plane MUST resolve the layer-2 address using ARP on
> > >>> multi-access networks and point-to-point over LAN [RFC5309] for
> > >>> direct next-hops in different subnets.
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >
> > >All,
> > >
> > >I agree with the principle, but I’d like to suggest a clarifying edit
> > >to the 2nd paragraph above:
> > >
> > >[begin candidate new text for 2nd paragraph above]
> > >
> > >“While OSPFv2 operates on a subnet, OSPFv3 operates on a link [RFC-
> 5340].
> > >Accordingly, an OSPFv3 router implementation MAY support adjacencies
> > >with OSPFv3 neighbors on different IPv4 subnets.  If this is
> > >supported, the
> > >IPv4 data plane MUST resolve the layer-2 address using ARP on
> > >multi-access networks and point-to-point over LAN [RFC 5309] for
> > >direct next-hops on different IPv4 subnets.”
> > >
> > >[end candidate new text for 2nd paragraph above]
> > >
> > >Yours,
> > >
> > >Ran
> > >
> > >


(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).
 
    Not applicable.

(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.

      None.

(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.

      Not applicable.

The following Last Call announcement was sent out:

From: The IESG
To: "IETF-Announce"
CC: draft-ietf-ospf-transition-to-ospfv3@ietf.org, wenhu.lu@gmail.com, "wenhu.lu@gmail.com" , akatlas@gmail.com, ospf@ietf.org, ospf-chairs@ietf.org
Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org
Sender:
Subject: Last Call:  (OSPFv3 over IPv4 for IPv6 Transition) to Proposed Standard


The IESG has received a request from the Open Shortest Path First IGP WG
(ospf) to consider the following document:
- 'OSPFv3 over IPv4 for IPv6 Transition'
  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 2016-06-23. 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 mechanism to use IPv4 to transport OSPFv3
  packets.  Using OSPFv3 over IPv4 with the existing OSPFv3 Address
  Family extension can simplify transition from an OSPFv2 IPv4-only
  routing domain to an OSPFv3 dual-stack routing domain.  This document
  updates RFC 5838 to support virtual links in the IPv4 unicast address
  family when using OSPFv3 over IPv4.




The file can be obtained via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ospf-transition-to-ospfv3/

IESG discussion can be tracked via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ospf-transition-to-ospfv3/ballot/


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

(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?

      An Internet Standard Track RFC is being requested and is indicated in the
      title page header.

(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:

      This document specifies a mechanism to transport OSPFv3 packets over IPv4
      routing domain using the existing OSPFv3 Address Family extension. It
      simplifies transition from an OSPFv2 IPv4-only routing domain to an
      OSPFv3 dual-stack routing domain. It updates RFC 5838 to support virtual
      links in the IPv4 unicast address family when using OSPFv3 over IPv4.

Working Group Summary:

    This document brings in deployment benefit with little change to OSPFv3
    protocol and no impact to IPv4 transport. It received strong support
    for WG acceptance. There has not been any more comments since WGLC.

Document Quality:

      Most questions were raised and addressed during the I.D stage.
      Since then the draft is stable, without changes to the technical
      solution for more than six months.

Personnel:

      Wenhu Lu is the Document Shepherd.
      Alia Atlas is the Responsible Area Director.

(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.

    The document shepherd has reviewed each revision of the document
    and followed the discussion on the OSPF mailing list.


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

      No.

(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.

(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.

      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. If not, explain why?

    Yes.

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

      No.

(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 is consensus from the WG that this document can progress.

(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.)

      No.

(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.

      Nits are all resolved.

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

      Not applicable.

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

      Yes.

(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?
 
      No.

(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.

      No.

(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.

      The email discussion that leads to revision 05, 06 and 07:

On Tue, May 24, 2016 at 7:02 AM, Ing-Wher (Helen) Chen  wrote:
Here's the latest version of the draft, version -06, which includes a new acknowledgment section to thank Alexander for his comments.  Thanks Alexander!

Name:          draft-ietf-ospf-transition-to-ospfv3
Revision:      07
Title:          OSPFv3 over IPv4 for IPv6 Transition
Document date:  2016-05-24
Group:          ospf
Pages:          10
URL:            https://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ospf-transition-to-ospfv3-07.txt
Status:        https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ospf-transition-to-ospfv3/
Htmlized:      https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ospf-transition-to-ospfv3-07
Diff:          https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-ospf-transition-to-ospfv3-07

Thanks,
Helen

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ing-Wher (Helen) Chen [mailto:ichen@kuatrotech.com]
> Sent: Monday, May 23, 2016 11:38 AM
> To: Acee Lindem (acee) ; Randal Atkinson
>
> Cc: Alexander Okonnikov ; draft-ietf-
> ospf-transition-to-ospfv3@ietf.org
> Subject: RE: Mail regarding draft-ietf-ospf-transition-to-ospfv3
>
> I made the suggested changes, including Ran's edit, to Section 3.1 and
> submitted a new revision.  The correct new version is -06 (please ignore
> version -05), and the diff between -04 and -06 is here:
>
>  ietf-ospf-transition-to-ospfv3-04.txt&url2=https://www.ietf.org/id/draft-
> ietf-ospf-transition-to-ospfv3-06.txt>
>
> Name:        draft-ietf-ospf-transition-to-ospfv3
> Revision:    06
> Title:                OSPFv3 over IPv4 for IPv6 Transition
> Document date:        2016-05-23
> Group:                ospf
> Pages:                10
> URL:            https://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ospf-transition-
> to-ospfv3-06.txt
> Status:        https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ospf-transition-to-
> ospfv3/
> Htmlized:      https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ospf-transition-to-ospfv3-
> 06
> Diff:          https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-ospf-transition-to-
> ospfv3-06
>
> Thanks,
> Helen
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Acee Lindem (acee) [mailto:acee@cisco.com]
> > Sent: Sunday, May 22, 2016 4:41 PM
> > To: Randal Atkinson
> > Cc: Ing-Wher (Helen) Chen ; Alexander
> Okonnikov
> > ; draft-ietf-ospf-transition-to-
> > ospfv3@ietf.org
> > Subject: Re: Mail regarding draft-ietf-ospf-transition-to-ospfv3
> >
> > Hi Ran,
> > Sounds good to me.
> > Thanks,
> > Acee
> >
> > On 5/22/16, 2:51 PM, "Randal Atkinson"  wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >> On 19May2016, at 12:49, Acee Lindem (acee)
> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> Hi Helen,
> > >>
> > >> I agree. Though I missed the context to Alex’s comment in my reply,
> > >> I actually meant to add rather than replace as you are proposing.
> > >>
> > >> Thanks,
> > >> Acee
> > >>
> > >> On 5/19/16, 11:25 AM, "Ing-Wher (Helen) Chen"
> >
> > >>wrote:
> > >>
> > >>> How about the following text for Section 3.1, in its entirety?  (I
> > >>>think  it's  important to emphasize the normal case.)
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> For OSPFv3 over IPv4, the source address is the primary IPv4
> > >>> address for the interface over which the packet is transmitted.
> > >>> All OSPFv3 routers on the link SHOULD share the same IPv4 subnet
> > >>> for
> > >>> IPv4 transport to function correctly.
> > >>>
> > >>> An OSPFv3 router implementation MAY support adjacencies with
> > >>> neighbors on different IPv4 subnets since OSPFv3 runs on a link
> > >>> rather than on a subnet [RFC5340]. If this is supported, the IPv4
> > >>> data plane MUST resolve the layer-2 address using ARP on
> > >>> multi-access networks and point-to-point over LAN [RFC5309] for
> > >>> direct next-hops in different subnets.
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >
> > >All,
> > >
> > >I agree with the principle, but I’d like to suggest a clarifying edit
> > >to the 2nd paragraph above:
> > >
> > >[begin candidate new text for 2nd paragraph above]
> > >
> > >“While OSPFv2 operates on a subnet, OSPFv3 operates on a link [RFC-
> 5340].
> > >Accordingly, an OSPFv3 router implementation MAY support adjacencies
> > >with OSPFv3 neighbors on different IPv4 subnets.  If this is
> > >supported, the
> > >IPv4 data plane MUST resolve the layer-2 address using ARP on
> > >multi-access networks and point-to-point over LAN [RFC 5309] for
> > >direct next-hops on different IPv4 subnets.”
> > >
> > >[end candidate new text for 2nd paragraph above]
> > >
> > >Yours,
> > >
> > >Ran
> > >
> > >


(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).
 
    Not applicable.

(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.

      None.

(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.

      Not applicable.

(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?

      An Internet Standard Track RFC is being requested and is indicated in the
      title page header.

(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:

      This document specifies a mechanism to transport OSPFv3 packets over IPv4
      routing domain using the existing OSPFv3 Address Family extension. It
      simplifies transition from an OSPFv2 IPv4-only routing domain to an
      OSPFv3 dual-stack routing domain. It updates RFC 5838 to support virtual
      links in the IPv4 unicast address family when using OSPFv3 over IPv4.

Working Group Summary:

    This document brings in deployment benefit with little change to OSPFv3
    protocol and no impact to IPv4 transport. It received strong support
    for WG acceptance. There has not been any more comments since WGLC.

Document Quality:

      Most questions were raised and addressed during the I.D stage.
      Since then the draft is stable, without changes to the technical
      solution for more than six months.

Personnel:

      Wenhu Lu is the Document Shepherd.
      Alia Atlas is the Responsible Area Director.

(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.

    The document shepherd has reviewed each revision of the document
    and followed the discussion on the OSPF mailing list.


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

      No.

(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.

(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.

      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. If not, explain why?

    Yes.

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

      No.

(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 is consensus from the WG that this document can progress.

(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.)

      No.

(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.

      Nits are all resolved.

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

      Not applicable.

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

      Yes.

(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?
 
      No.

(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.

      No.

(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.

      The email discussion that leads to revision 05 and 06:

I made the suggested changes, including Ran's edit, to Section 3.1 and submitted a new revision.  The correct new version is -06 (please ignore version -05), and the diff between -04 and -06 is here:



Name:          draft-ietf-ospf-transition-to-ospfv3
Revision:      06
Title:          OSPFv3 over IPv4 for IPv6 Transition
Document date:  2016-05-23
Group:          ospf
Pages:          10
URL:            https://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ospf-transition-to-ospfv3-06.txt
Status:        https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ospf-transition-to-ospfv3/
Htmlized:      https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ospf-transition-to-ospfv3-06
Diff:          https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-ospf-transition-to-ospfv3-06

Thanks,
Helen

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Acee Lindem (acee) [mailto:acee@cisco.com]
> Sent: Sunday, May 22, 2016 4:41 PM
> To: Randal Atkinson
> Cc: Ing-Wher (Helen) Chen ; Alexander Okonnikov
> ; draft-ietf-ospf-transition-to-
> ospfv3@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: Mail regarding draft-ietf-ospf-transition-to-ospfv3
>
> Hi Ran,
> Sounds good to me.
> Thanks,
> Acee
>
> On 5/22/16, 2:51 PM, "Randal Atkinson"  wrote:
>
> >
> >> On 19May2016, at 12:49, Acee Lindem (acee)  wrote:
> >>
> >> Hi Helen,
> >>
> >> I agree. Though I missed the context to Alex’s comment in my reply,
> >> I actually meant to add rather than replace as you are proposing.
> >>
> >> Thanks,
> >> Acee
> >>
> >> On 5/19/16, 11:25 AM, "Ing-Wher (Helen) Chen"
>
> >>wrote:
> >>
> >>> How about the following text for Section 3.1, in its entirety?  (I
> >>>think  it's  important to emphasize the normal case.)
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> For OSPFv3 over IPv4, the source address is the primary IPv4
> >>> address for the interface over which the packet is transmitted.
> >>> All OSPFv3 routers on the link SHOULD share the same IPv4 subnet
> >>> for
> >>> IPv4 transport to function correctly.
> >>>
> >>> An OSPFv3 router implementation MAY support adjacencies with
> >>> neighbors on different IPv4 subnets since OSPFv3 runs on a link
> >>> rather than on a subnet [RFC5340]. If this is supported, the IPv4
> >>> data plane MUST resolve the layer-2 address using ARP on
> >>> multi-access networks and point-to-point over LAN [RFC5309] for
> >>> direct next-hops in different subnets.
> >>>
> >>>
> >
> >All,
> >
> >I agree with the principle, but I’d like to suggest a clarifying edit
> >to the 2nd paragraph above:
> >
> >[begin candidate new text for 2nd paragraph above]
> >
> >“While OSPFv2 operates on a subnet, OSPFv3 operates on a link [RFC-5340].
> >Accordingly, an OSPFv3 router implementation MAY support adjacencies
> >with OSPFv3 neighbors on different IPv4 subnets.  If this is
> >supported, the
> >IPv4 data plane MUST resolve the layer-2 address using ARP on
> >multi-access networks and point-to-point over LAN [RFC 5309] for
> >direct next-hops on different IPv4 subnets.”
> >
> >[end candidate new text for 2nd paragraph above]
> >
> >Yours,
> >
> >Ran
> >
> >



(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).
 
    Not applicable.

(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.

      None.

(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.

      Not applicable.

(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?

      An Internet Standard Track RFC is being requested and is indicated in the
      title page header.

(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:

      This document specifies a mechanism to transport OSPFv3 packets over IPv4
      routing domain using the existing OSPFv3 Address Family extension. It
      simplifies transition from an OSPFv2 IPv4-only routing domain to an
      OSPFv3 dual-stack routing domain. It updates RFC 5838 to support virtual
      links in the IPv4 unicast address family when using OSPFv3 over IPv4.

Working Group Summary:

    This document brings in deployment benefit with little change to OSPFv3
    protocol and no impact to IPv4 transport. It received strong support
    for WG acceptance. There has not been any more comments since WGLC.

Document Quality:

      Most questions were raised and addressed during the I.D stage.
      Since then the draft is stable, without changes to the technical
      solution for more than six months.

Personnel:

      Wenhu Lu is the Document Shepherd.
      Alia Atlas is the Responsible Area Director.

(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.

    The document shepherd has reviewed each revision of the document
    and followed the discussion on the OSPF mailing list.


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

      No.

(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.

(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.

      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. If not, explain why?

    Yes.

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

      No.

(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 is consensus from the WG that this document can progress.

(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.)

      No.

(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.

      Nits are all resolved.

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

      Not applicable.

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

      Yes.

(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?
 
      No.

(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.

      No.

(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.

(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).
 
    Not applicable.

(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.

      None.

(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.

      Not applicable.