(1) The type of RFC requested is Proposed Standard. This is the proper type because this document describes specifications for a mechanism being implemented and deployed. The type of RFC is indicated in the title page header.
(2) Here is the Document Announcement Write-Up,
In networks that use multiple techniques for address assignment, the appropriate Source Address Validation Improvement (SAVI) methods must be used to prevent spoofing of addresses assigned by each such technique. This document reviews how multiple SAVI methods can coexist in a single SAVI device and collisions are resolved when the same binding entry is discovered by two or more methods.
Working Group Summary:
There was nothing noteworthy in the WG process.
This document has been thorough reviewed and a dedicated language review was done by one of the co-authors, Joel Halpern, native English speaker.
The document shepherd is Jean-Michel Combes (email@example.com). The Responsible Area Director is Suresh Krishnan (firstname.lastname@example.org).
(3) The review of this document performed by the Document Shepherd includes:
- Comments regarding technical clarifications
- Comments regarding editorial modifications (e.g., references)
- A check of the English level (even if English is not the mother tongue of the Document Shepherd).
The Responsible Area Director was always aware about the exchanges between the Document Shepherd and the authors during the review
(4) The Document Shepherd has no concern about the deph or breadth of the reviews that have been performed.
(5) The document needn’t review from a particular or from broader perspective.
(6) The Document Shepherd has no specific concerns or issue with this document.
(7) Each author confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR disclosures required for full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79 have been filed.
(8) No IPR disclosure has been filed that references this document
(9) The WG consensus behind this document is mainly based of the agreement of a small group with others being silent.
(10) Nobody threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent.
(11) The check done with ID Nits tool is not successful: there is one error (cf. point 15).
(12) The document doesn’t need to meet any required format review criteria
(13) All references within this document have been identified as either normative or informative but, as noted by the ID Nits check (cf. above), a normative reference is in fact an Informational RFC.
(14) There are no references to documents that are not ready for advancement or otherwise are in an unclear state.
(15) There is one downward normative reference (cf. ID Nits check). This normative reference (i.e., [RFC7039]) should become informative reference.
(16) The publication of this document will not change the status of any existing RFC.
(17) There is no request for an action from the IANA.
(18) There is no request for an action from the IANA.
(19) There is no formal language inside this document expecting a specific review from the Document Shepherd.