(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?
The draft is intended to be at, and requests, Informational status.
(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:
This document summarizes the sharing of IPv6 connectivity for 3GPP devices
or UEs in advance of implementations that fully support IPv6 prefix
delegation. Specifically, this document outlines how a 3GPP device can
facilitate connection sharing where only a single, globally routable /64
IPv6 prefix is available.
Working Group Summary:
This draft was initiated in December 2012 draft-ietf-v6ops-64share-00.txt
and has been actively updated since the initial draft was published.
T-Mobile and DT have been actively working in this space advancing this
work while mobile handsets evolve to support more advanced connectivity
models including support for IPv6 prefix delegation. The overarching goal
of the draft is to enable support for multiple devices through a
connection that is enabled with globally routable IPv6 connectivity that
is typically akin to that for a single device. This work does not employ
the use of IPv6 address sharing or any form of translation related to IPv6.
The working group has commented on at length and in turn the authors
revised the draft to account for this feedback. Principally significant
feedback was given around MTU handling and matters related to IPv6
neighbor discovery in where 64share has been deployed. More recently
alignment with related work has been considered including RFC6204bis.
Finally, Neighbor Discovery Proxy (ND Proxy) [RFC4389] functionality has
been suggested as an option for extending the assigned /64 from the 3GPP
radio interface to the LAN link, but ND Proxy is an experimental
protocol and has some limitations with loop-avoidance.
As specified in the abstract, the document is not a protocol or procedure;
the document does outline implementation details and observations of the
same to date in various modes of operation.
The document shepherd is John Jason Brzozowski. The responsible AD is Joel
(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
In the view of the chairs, this document is ready for publication, having
been reviewed thoroughly by working group since the document was initially
published. The shepherd tracked working group commentary. The shepherd
also read the document and ran it through idnits.
(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
(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
I have no issues with the document as it stands.
(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?
The authors tell me that they know of no outstanding IPR disclosures.
(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If so,
summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures.
ne-v6ops-64share, there are no relevant IPR disclosures.
(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 general consensus for this document, generally speaking the WG
appears to understand the scope and importance of this work. Again this
work is focused on enabling IPv6 connectivity where advanced support for
IPv6 provisioning in the form of IPv6 prefix delegation appearing in
mobile devices and networks.
(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 http://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts
Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be
idnits was run on draft -09, minor, miscellaneous issues were reported.
(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria,
such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.
(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.
The normative references are all to informational, BCP, or standards track
documents. As an informational document, these are not downward references.
(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.
The document doesn't change the status of any RFCs.
(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 memo includes no request to IANA.
(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.
There are 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.
None. There is no formal language in the document.