DHCPv6 Options for Configuration of Softwire Address and Port-Mapped Clients
draft-ietf-softwire-map-dhcp-12

[Ballot comment]
This issue has been discussed and the authors have proposed changes to the references. I will leave the authors and AD to resolve the issue.

[Ballot discuss]
This is only marginally a Discuss, but I think it needs to be addressed.

[I-D.ietf-softwire-map-t] is definitely used as a normative reference.

I have a feeling that [I-D.ietf-dhc-sedhcpv6] is also normative, but I'm less certain.

[Ballot comment]
* I am surprised that some of the option formats do not do a better job of aligning fields on 32-bit boundaries.  Re-arranging a few fields (and possibly adding a Reserved/Padding field) would make parsing easier for the S46 Rule Option and the S46 DMR Option.

* I will note that since each of these options provides a single IP address, there is no mechanism in place to handle a failure with service hosted at that IP address.  For example, what would a client do if the address signaled via the OPTION_S46_BR was no longer reachable?

IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

IANA has reviewed draft-ietf-softwire-map-dhcp-08. Please report any inaccuracies as soon as possible.

IANA's reviewer has the following comments:

IANA understands that, upon approval of this document, there is a single action which IANA must complete.

In the Options Code registry under the Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol for IPv6 (DHCPv6) heading at

https://www.iana.org/assignments/dhcpv6-parameters/

IANA will update the references for the following registrations:

89 OPTION_S46_RULE [RFC-to-be]
90 OPTION_S46_BR [RFC-to-be]
91 OPTION_S46_DMR [RFC-to-be]
92 OPTION_S46_V4V6BIND [RFC-to-be]
93 OPTION_S46_PORTPARAMS [RFC-to-be]
94 OPTION_S46_CONT_MAPE [RFC-to-be]
95 OPTION_S46_CONT_MAPT [RFC-to-be]
96 OPTION_S46_CONT_LW [RFC-to-be]

IANA understands that the designated expert has reviewed and approved these registrations.

Note:  The actions requested in this document will not be completed until the document has been approved for publication as an RFC. This message is only to confirm what actions will be performed.

The following Last Call announcement was sent out:

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC:
Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org
Sender:
Subject: Last Call:  (DHCPv6 Options for configuration of Softwire Address and Port Mapped Clients) to Proposed Standard


The IESG has received a request from the Softwires WG (softwire) to
consider the following document:
- 'DHCPv6 Options for configuration of Softwire Address and Port Mapped
  Clients'
  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 2014-10-10. 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 specifies DHCPv6 options, termed Softwire46 options,
  for the provisioning of Softwire46 Customer Edge (CE) devices.
  Softwire46 is a collective term used to refer to architectures based
  on the notion of IPv4 Address+Port (A+P) for providing IPv4
  connectivity across an IPv6 network.




The file can be obtained via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-softwire-map-dhcp/

IESG discussion can be tracked via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-softwire-map-dhcp/ballot/


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

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?

Proposed Standard. The draft describes the DHCPv6 options required to
provision softwire CPEs. 

(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 DHCPv6 options, termed Softwire46 options,
  for the provisioning of Softwire46 Customer Edge (CE) devices.
  Softwire46 is a collective term used to refer to architectures based
  on the notion of IPv4 Address+Port (A+P) for providing IPv4
  connectivity across an IPv6 network.

Working Group Summary

  The working group had active discussion on the draft and the current
  text of the draft is representative of the consensus of the working
  group. This document was a result of merging DHCPv6 options
  required for several softwire solutions into a single document and
  rationalizing them after consolidating similar options and removing
  duplicates.

Document Quality

  There is an open source implementation of these options in the recently
  released OpenWRT software (the BARRIER BREAKER release). There
  are also available implementations of the mechanism specific options
  that got merged into this draft.

Personnel

  Who is the Document Shepherd? Who is the Responsible Area
  Director?

Suresh Krishnan is the document shepherd. Ted Lemon is the responsible
AD.

(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 the draft and finds that it is ready
to advance to the IESG. All issues that were raised in the working group
last calls have been addressed.

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

No. The document shepherd has no such concerns.

(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.

Since the document is a merge of several mechanism specific documents
the number of front page authors on the document is pretty high (8). If
the IESG feels that this is too high, we may need to figure out a fair
scheme to decide who gets on the front page author list.

(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 strong WG consensus behind this document.

(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.

No errors were found on the ID nits check.

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

N/A.

(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).

The document requires allocation of 8 DHCPv6 options. I requested early
allocation of the options using the RFC7120 procedure as there was an
release of OpenWRT that was ready to ship out and it would be good to
get the actual option codes in the code base instead of placeholders or
squat space. The option codes have already been allocated.

(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.

N/A.

(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.

N/A.