Skip to main content

Shepherd writeup

Dear INT Area Directors and IESG-Secretary -

Please advance in the process and publish this draft from the
Softwires WG. Here is the proto writeup for the draft:

(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?

Intended status: Standards Track (Indicated on title page)
This document describes new RADIUS TLVs for provisioning IPv4 in IPv6
softwire mechanisms.

(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

DHCPv6 options have already been defined for configuring clients for 
IPv4-over-IPv6 softwires. However, in many networks, centralised
configuration information is stored centrally in AAA servers accessed
via RADIUS.  This document defines new RADIUS attributes to carry
Address plus Port based softwire configuration parameters between
the AAA server and the Broadband Network Gateway.
Mappings between RADIUS parameters and the corresponding DHCPv6 
options/fields are included so that the BNG can assign them to
DHCPv6 clients. Attributes for configuring both unicast and multicast 
softwires are covered.

Working Group Summary

Was there anything in WG process that is worth noting? For 
example, was there controversy about particular points or 
were there decisions where the consensus was particularly 

No points or controversy has been raised during the authoring or review
process. The author's original scope was just to define RADIUS attributes
for MAP-E & MAP-T based softwire configuration, but by agreement of
the WG, the document scope was extended to cover all standards track
softwire mechanisms (unicast and multicast) that do not currently
have RADIUS configuration defined.

Document Quality

Are there existing implementations of the protocol? Have a 
significant number of vendors indicated their plan to 
implement the specification? Are there any reviewers that 
merit special mention as having done a thorough review, 
e.g., one that resulted in important changes or a 
conclusion that the document had no substantive issues? If 
there was a MIB Doctor, Media Type or other expert review, 
what was its course (briefly)? In the case of a Media Type 
review, on what date was the request posted?

The draft has been reviewed by Alan DeKok (RADEXT) who
suggested substantial changes to make the document more
readable and in line with recent RADIUS document conventions.
Chongfeng Xie from China Telecom made the following statement regarding an
"We have done some implementations when we carried out Lightweight4over6
trial in some provinces of China."


Who is the Document Shepherd? Who is the Responsible Area

Ian Farrer (Softwire co-chair), is the Document Shepherd.
Eric Vyncke 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 has been reviewed by the Document Shepherd for 
technical content, completeness and language. All raised comments
have been addressed. The document is well written and ready for 

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


(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.

The document defines new RADIUS attributes and TLVs, and so has been
reviewed by RADEXT (Alan DeKok). Comments received have been addressed
by the authors.

(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.


(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.


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

No IPR issues have been filed. All authors have confirmed that
they are not aware of any IPR related to this document.

(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?   

The WG consensus has been achieved and all of the related active
participants agree on the advancement of 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.) 


(11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this
document. (See and the Internet-Drafts
Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be

I-D nits reports:
 == Line 1245 has weird spacing: '...uration   tlv ...'
The referenced line is as follows:

      241.TBD1     Softwire46-Configuration   tlv         Section 3.1

The above is a table entry and is correctly spaced, so not an error.

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

The docuemt has been reviewed by RADEXT (Alan DeKok). Comments received 
have been addressed by the authors.

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


(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?


(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. 


(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.


(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 defines a new IANA registry called "RADIUS Softwire46
Configuration and Multicast Attributes" and provides the initial values for
the registry. The document defines the registry as being 'Standards Action'
according to RFC8126.

(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.

No registries requiring Expert Review are defined. 

(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.

None (no formal language included in the document).