Unified IPv4-in-IPv6 Softwire Customer Premises Equipment (CPE): A DHCPv6-Based Prioritization Mechanism
draft-ietf-softwire-unified-cpe-08

[Ballot comment]
- Abstract and Title: Neither the Abstract or Title seem to describe the contents of the draft. It seems to be about prioritization among multiple s46 mechanisms. It might be worth mentioning that in the abstract. (Also, the title header for pages 2+ does not match the title page title)

- section 3: "This may lead to setting a different IPv4 service
  continuity mechanism than the one initially preferred by the network
  side"

Are there consequences of that that should be discussed? E.g. bid-down attacks, ability to direct packets via a compromised path, etc? (I'm not saying there are; I'm just asking.)

[Ballot comment]
Maybe be slightly more specific in the abstract, e.g.:

OLD
... this memo
  specifies a DHCPv6 option whereby a single CPE can interwork with all
  of the standardized and proposed approaches to providing encapsulated
  IPv4 in IPv6 services.

NEW
... this memo
  specifies a DHCPv6 option whereby a single CPE can interwork with all
  of the standardized and proposed approaches to providing encapsulated
  IPv4 in IPv6 services by providing a prioritization mechanism.

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

IANA has completed its review of draft-ietf-softwire-unified-cpe-04.txt. If any part of this review is inaccurate, please let us know.

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

In the Option Codes subregistry of the Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol for IPv6 (DHCPv6) registry located at:

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

a single new option code will be registered as follows:

Value: [ TBD-at-Registration ]
Description: OPTION_V6_S46_PRIORITY
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

As this document requests registrations in an Expert Review or Specification Required (see RFC 5226) registry, we will initiate the required Expert Review via a separate request. Expert review will need to be completed before your document can be approved for publication as an RFC.

IANA understands that this is the only action required to be completed upon approval of this document.

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. 

Thank you,

Sabrina Tanamal
IANA Specialist
ICANN

The following Last Call announcement was sent out:

From: The IESG
To: "IETF-Announce"
CC: softwire-chairs@ietf.org, softwires@ietf.org, cuiyong@tsinghua.edu.cn, draft-ietf-softwire-unified-cpe@ietf.org, "Yong Cui" , terry.manderson@icann.org
Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org
Sender:
Subject: Last Call:  (Unified IPv4-in-IPv6 Softwire CPE) to Proposed Standard


The IESG has received a request from the Softwires WG (softwire) to
consider the following document:
- 'Unified IPv4-in-IPv6 Softwire CPE'
  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 2016-08-25. 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


  In IPv6-only provider networks, transporting IPv4 packets
  encapsulated in IPv6 is a common solution to the problem of IPv4
  service continuity.  A number of differing functional approaches have
  been developed for this, each having their own specific
  characteristics.  As these approaches share a similar functional
  architecture and use the same data plane mechanisms, this memo
  describes a specification whereby a single CPE can interwork with all
  of the standardized and proposed approaches to providing encapsulated
  IPv4 in IPv6 services.





The file can be obtained via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-softwire-unified-cpe/

IESG discussion can be tracked via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-softwire-unified-cpe/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?

Intended status: Standards Track
This memo describes a specification for a single CPE to interwork
with different proposed approaches to providing encapsulated IPv4
in IPv6 services.

(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

In IPv6-only provider networks, transporting IPv4 packets
encapsulated in IPv6 is a common solution to the problem of IPv4
service continuity. A number of differing functional approaches
have been developed for this, each having their own specific
characteristics. As these approaches share a similar functional
architecture and use the same data plane mechanisms, this memo
describes a specification whereby a single CPE can interwork with
all of the standardized and proposed approaches to providing
encapsulated IPv4 in IPv6 services.


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
rough?

This document was discussed in depth and well-reviewed.
The WG achieves the consensus to publish this document.


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?

I'm not aware of any implementation for this, but as I know,
an operator/vendor has one scheduled for development later this
year.


Personnel

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

Softwire co-chair, Yong Cui, is the Document Shepherd.
Terry Manderson 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 is well writen and ready for publication.

(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.

N/A.

(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 IPR issue.

(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 is 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.)

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 and flaws.

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

There's no MIB-related stuff in this memo.

(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).

This document needs IANA to assign a new DHCPv6 option code
OPTION_V6_S46_PRIORITY.


(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.

(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

Thank you for taking care of the document.