(1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard,
Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)?
Proposed Standard. This is a Standard Track document, as it creates key
implications on all future standards track documents.
(2) Document Announcement Write-Up
Technical Summary
This document requests IETF to stop working on IPv4 except for security
issues.
Working Group Summary
All the revisions of this document have created a lot of discussions in the
past. The working group last call got strong support but only very few people
participated in the last call. Given the relative inactivity of the working
group for quite a while, it is possible that the mailing list is not watched.
Given that this document has widespread implications to any work within IETF,
the real wide review should be done IETF wide.
Document Quality
This document is pretty short. Implementations are not required, however, the
impact of the document to the standard track documents, to process and to
implementations is significant.
Personnel
Document shepherd: Marc Blanchet
Responsible Area Director: Terry Manderson
(3) Briefly describe the review of this document
See above in Working Group Summary
(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or
breadth of the reviews that have been performed?
See above in Working Group Summary
(5) Do portions of the document need review
No domain specific review is found necessary. However, all domains should
review the implications of the document.
(6) Describe any specific concerns or issues that the Document Shepherd
has
See above in Working Group Summary
(7) Has each author confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR
disclosures
yes.
(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document?
none.
(9) How solid is the WG consensus behind this document?
See above in Working Group Summary
(10) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme
discontent?
none.
(11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this
document.
ID-Nits says that this document does not have an Introduction. The shepherd
thinks that the document in its current form does not need one.
(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review
criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.
see (5)
(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?
none.
(15) Are there downward normative references references (see RFC 3967)?
none.
(16) Will publication of this document change the status of any
existing RFCs?
none.
(17) Describe the Document Shepherd's review of the IANA considerations
section,
no IANA considerations.
(18) List any new IANA registries that require Expert Review
none.
(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.
no language or code.