Automatically Connecting Stub Networks to Unmanaged Infrastructure
draft-ietf-snac-simple-12

Sending it back to the SNAC WG as the changes after the AD review were quite substantial. The AD decided that another WG last call is required.

More details at: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/snac/FkGruURZi13Ry73YPIxmjz4NTvE/

Sending it back to the SNAC WG as the changes after the AD review were quite substantial. The AD decided that another WG last call is required.

More details at: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/snac/FkGruURZi13Ry73YPIxmjz4NTvE/

This version is dated 4 July 2022.

Thank you for your service as a document shepherd. Among the responsibilities is
answering the questions in this write-up to give helpful context to Last Call
and Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG) reviewers, and your
diligence in completing it is appreciated. The full role of the shepherd is
further described in RFC 4858. You will need the cooperation of the authors
and editors to complete these checks.

Note that some numbered items contain multiple related questions; please be sure
to answer all of them.

Document History
1. Does the working group (WG) consensus represent the strong concurrence of a
few individuals, with others being silent, or did it reach broad agreement?

This document is the primary output of the snac working group, so it reached broad agreement within the working group, with comments from working group members who aren’t the authors.

2. Was there controversy about particular points, or were there decisions where
the consensus was particularly rough?

There was little controversy, with good discussion among the working group members.

3. Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If
so, please summarize 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.)

There seems to be no extreme discontent, so I would not expect an appeal.

4. For protocol documents, are there existing implementations of the contents of
the document? Have a significant number of potential implementers indicated
plans to implement? Are any existing implementations reported somewhere,
either in the document itself (as RFC 7942 recommends) or elsewhere
(where)?

The authors indicated that OpenThread (https://github.com/openthread/openthread), Apple tvOS, and Thread Border Routers (https://threadgroup.org/Certified-Products) all implement this document.

Additional Reviews
5. Do the contents of this document closely interact with technologies in other
IETF working groups or external organizations, and would it therefore benefit
from their review? Have those reviews occurred? If yes, describe which
reviews took place.

This document was reviewed by IPv6 experts in the 6MAN and v6ops working groups.  Additionally, the Thread Group reviewed it based on the authors' responses.

6. Describe how the document meets any required formal expert review criteria,
such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.

There were no additional required reviews.

7. If the document contains a YANG module, has the final version of the module
been checked with any of the recommended validation tools for syntax and
formatting validation? If there are any resulting errors or warnings, what is
the justification for not fixing them at this time? Does the YANG module
comply with the Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA) as specified
in RFC 8342?

N/A

8. Describe reviews and automated checks performed to validate sections of the
final version of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code,
BNF rules, MIB definitions, CBOR's CDDL, etc.

N/A

Document Shepherd Checks
9. Based on the shepherd's review of the document, is it their opinion that this
document is needed, clearly written, complete, correctly designed, and ready
to be handed off to the responsible Area Director?

As document shepherd, I reviewed this document to ensure that it is following the WG consensus and discussions and is of good quality. In my opinion, the document is ready for publication.

10. Several IETF Areas have assembled lists of common issues that their
reviewers encounter. For which areas have such issues been identified
and addressed? For which does this still need to happen in subsequent
reviews?

SNAC is part of the Internet Area working group and had the appropriate amount of review.

11. What type of RFC publication is being requested on the IETF stream (Best
Current Practice, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard,
Informational, Experimental or Historic)? Why is this the proper type
of RFC? Do all Datatracker state attributes correctly reflect this intent?

The RFC requested is Proposed Standard and is correctly attributed in the Datatracker.  This is appropriate for this
document as it describes how to implement and connect IPv6 stub networks to adjacent unmanaged IPv6 networks.

12. Have reasonable efforts been made to remind all authors of the intellectual
property rights (IPR) disclosure obligations described in BCP 79? To
the best of your knowledge, have all required disclosures been filed? If
not, explain why. If yes, summarize any relevant discussion, including links
to publicly-available messages when applicable.

I reached out to the authors about IPR and they responded they aren’t aware of any.

13. Has each author, editor, and contributor shown their willingness to be
listed as such? If the total number of authors and editors on the front page
is greater than five, please provide a justification.

Yes, all the authors have expressed willingness to be listed.

14. Document any remaining I-D nits in this document. Simply running the idnits
tool is not enough; please review the "Content Guidelines" on
authors.ietf.org. (Also note that the current idnits tool generates
some incorrect warnings; a rewrite is underway.)

I was not able to find any additional nits.

15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the IESG
Statement on Normative and Informative References.

No, every reference I reviewed is correctly classified as Normative or Informative.

16. List any normative references that are not freely available to anyone. Did
the community have sufficient access to review any such normative
References?

All references are publicly available.

17. Are there any normative downward references (see RFC 3967 and BCP
97) that are not already listed in the DOWNREF registry? If so,
list them.

RFC 7084 and RFC 9663 are both Informational at present, so they are downrefs, and neither is listed in the DOWNREF registry. RFC 7084 is moving to BCP via 7084-bis; if that were used, it wouldn't be a downref. I believe these downrefs are appropriate for this document.

18. Are there normative references to documents that are not ready to be
submitted to the IESG for publication or are otherwise in an unclear state?
If so, what is the plan for their completion?

There are two drafts listed as normative references.

ietf-6man-snac-router-ra-flag has been submitted to IESG for publication.

ietf-dnssd-advertising-proxy appears to have expired in 2024. This either needs to be removed or work needs to be done to complete this for the draft to move forward.

19. Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? If
so, does the Datatracker metadata correctly reflect this and are those RFCs
listed on the title page, in the abstract, and discussed in the
introduction? If not, explain why and point to the part of the document
where the relationship of this document to these other RFCs is discussed.

No, this document is stand alone.

20. 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 aspects of the document requiring IANA assignments are
associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm
that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm
that each newly created IANA registry specifies its initial contents,
allocations procedures, and a reasonable name (see RFC 8126).

A new entry in the service.arpa subdomain is requested, and the name and request seem reasonable.

21. List any new IANA registries that require Designated Expert Review for
future allocations. Are the instructions to the Designated Expert clear?
Please include suggestions of designated experts, if appropriate.

No new registries are needed.

This version is dated 4 July 2022.

Thank you for your service as a document shepherd. Among the responsibilities is
answering the questions in this write-up to give helpful context to Last Call
and Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG) reviewers, and your
diligence in completing it is appreciated. The full role of the shepherd is
further described in RFC 4858. You will need the cooperation of the authors
and editors to complete these checks.

Note that some numbered items contain multiple related questions; please be sure
to answer all of them.

Document History
1. Does the working group (WG) consensus represent the strong concurrence of a
few individuals, with others being silent, or did it reach broad agreement?

This document is the primary output of the snac working group, so it reached broad agreement within the working group, with comments from working group members who aren’t the authors.

2. Was there controversy about particular points, or were there decisions where
the consensus was particularly rough?

There was little controversy, with good discussion among the working group members.

3. Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If
so, please summarize 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.)

There seems to be no extreme discontent, so I would not expect an appeal.

4. For protocol documents, are there existing implementations of the contents of
the document? Have a significant number of potential implementers indicated
plans to implement? Are any existing implementations reported somewhere,
either in the document itself (as RFC 7942 recommends) or elsewhere
(where)?

The authors indicated that OpenThread (https://github.com/openthread/openthread), Apple tvOS, and Thread Border Routers (https://threadgroup.org/Certified-Products) all implement this document.

Additional Reviews
5. Do the contents of this document closely interact with technologies in other
IETF working groups or external organizations, and would it therefore benefit
from their review? Have those reviews occurred? If yes, describe which
reviews took place.

This document was reviewed by IPv6 experts in the 6MAN and v6ops working groups.  Additionally, the Thread Group reviewed it based on the authors' responses.

6. Describe how the document meets any required formal expert review criteria,
such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.

There were no additional required reviews.

7. If the document contains a YANG module, has the final version of the module
been checked with any of the recommended validation tools for syntax and
formatting validation? If there are any resulting errors or warnings, what is
the justification for not fixing them at this time? Does the YANG module
comply with the Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA) as specified
in RFC 8342?

N/A

8. Describe reviews and automated checks performed to validate sections of the
final version of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code,
BNF rules, MIB definitions, CBOR's CDDL, etc.

N/A

Document Shepherd Checks
9. Based on the shepherd's review of the document, is it their opinion that this
document is needed, clearly written, complete, correctly designed, and ready
to be handed off to the responsible Area Director?

As document shepherd, I reviewed this document to ensure that it is following the WG consensus and discussions and is of good quality. In my opinion, the document is ready for publication.

10. Several IETF Areas have assembled lists of common issues that their
reviewers encounter. For which areas have such issues been identified
and addressed? For which does this still need to happen in subsequent
reviews?

SNAC is part of the Internet Area working group and had the appropriate amount of review.

11. What type of RFC publication is being requested on the IETF stream (Best
Current Practice, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard,
Informational, Experimental or Historic)? Why is this the proper type
of RFC? Do all Datatracker state attributes correctly reflect this intent?

The RFC requested is Proposed Standard and is correctly attributed in the Datatracker.  This is appropriate for this
document as it describes how to implement and connect IPv6 stub networks to adjacent unmanaged IPv6 networks.

12. Have reasonable efforts been made to remind all authors of the intellectual
property rights (IPR) disclosure obligations described in BCP 79? To
the best of your knowledge, have all required disclosures been filed? If
not, explain why. If yes, summarize any relevant discussion, including links
to publicly-available messages when applicable.

I reached out to the authors about IPR and they responded they aren’t aware of any.

13. Has each author, editor, and contributor shown their willingness to be
listed as such? If the total number of authors and editors on the front page
is greater than five, please provide a justification.

Yes, all the authors have expressed willingness to be listed.

14. Document any remaining I-D nits in this document. Simply running the idnits
tool is not enough; please review the "Content Guidelines" on
authors.ietf.org. (Also note that the current idnits tool generates
some incorrect warnings; a rewrite is underway.)

I was not able to find any additional nits.

15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the IESG
Statement on Normative and Informative References.

No, every reference I reviewed is correctly classified as Normative or Informative.

16. List any normative references that are not freely available to anyone. Did
the community have sufficient access to review any such normative
References?

All references are publicly available.

17. Are there any normative downward references (see RFC 3967 and BCP
97) that are not already listed in the DOWNREF registry? If so,
list them.

RFC 7084 and RFC 9663 are both Informational at present, so they are downrefs, and neither is listed in the DOWNREF registry. RFC 7084 is moving to BCP via 7084-bis; if that were used, it wouldn't be a downref. I believe these downrefs are appropriate for this document.

18. Are there normative references to documents that are not ready to be
submitted to the IESG for publication or are otherwise in an unclear state?
If so, what is the plan for their completion?

There are two drafts listed as normative references.

ietf-6man-snac-router-ra-flag has been submitted to IESG for publication.

ietf-dnssd-advertising-proxy appears to have expired in 2024. This either needs to be removed or work needs to be done to complete this for the draft to move forward.

19. Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? If
so, does the Datatracker metadata correctly reflect this and are those RFCs
listed on the title page, in the abstract, and discussed in the
introduction? If not, explain why and point to the part of the document
where the relationship of this document to these other RFCs is discussed.

No, this document is stand alone.

20. 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 aspects of the document requiring IANA assignments are
associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm
that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm
that each newly created IANA registry specifies its initial contents,
allocations procedures, and a reasonable name (see RFC 8126).

A new entry in the service.arpa subdomain is requested, and the name and request seem reasonable.

21. List any new IANA registries that require Designated Expert Review for
future allocations. Are the instructions to the Designated Expert clear?
Please include suggestions of designated experts, if appropriate.

No new registries are needed.