Skip to main content

Shepherd writeup

# Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents

*This version is dated 4 July 2022.*

Thank you for your service as a document shepherd. Among the responsibilities is
answering the questions in this write-up to give helpful context to Last Call
and Internet Engineering Steering Group ([IESG][1]) reviewers, and your
diligence in completing it is appreciated. The full role of the shepherd is
further described in [RFC 4858][2]. You will need the cooperation of the authors
and editors to complete these checks.

Note that some numbered items contain multiple related questions; please be sure
to answer all of them.

## Document History

1. Does the working group (WG) consensus represent the strong concurrence of a
   few individuals, with others being silent, or did it reach broad agreement?

This document had a large email discussion over its lifecycle.  In the end
there were a few individuals that had reservations about this document.  The
working group chairs called consensus on this document, which caused some
additional emails about this that are documented below.

2. Was there controversy about particular points, or were there decisions where
   the consensus was particularly rough?

Martin Hunek was concerned about having to adjust his university network
address plan from 2009.  It wouldn't support giving host prefixes, so he was
concerned about that aspect of the document.  After some discussion at IETF
118, he send this email
which states he understands the need but won't be able to deploy it on this
network.  I think this was a good outcome from a long technical discussion.

Gert Doering objected with the following thoughts,

"I do consider this actively harmful.  It establishes a "each host gets
a /64" as best practice, disguising as "because existing hosts do not
know other ways" (they do not know how to do DHCPv6-PD in the first place,
so this is a very weak statement)."

His objection is around the /64 prefix boundary which is a long
standing discussion in the IETF between 6MAN/V6OPS.  This draft
does highlight this issue for networks wanted to not use /64 for all host.
The issue he is pointing out that additional drafts will be needed and if
they aren't written it may cause issues with IPv6 deployments.  He does seemed
resigned to allow this draft thru, but wonders about the future.

3. Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If
   so, please summarize 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.)

I don't think there is extreme discontent with this draft.  Concerns were
raised, but not to a level of an appeal.

4. For protocol documents, are there existing implementations of the contents of
   the document? Have a significant number of potential implementers indicated
   plans to implement? Are any existing implementations reported somewhere,
   either in the document itself (as [RFC 7942][3] recommends) or elsewhere

N/A.  This is a document for IPv6 deployment using existing implementations of
DHCPv6 Clients using IA_PD.

## Additional Reviews

5. Do the contents of this document closely interact with technologies in other
   IETF working groups or external organizations, and would it therefore benefit
   from their review? Have those reviews occurred? If yes, describe which
   reviews took place.

    This document is a v6ops working group document, but was sent to the DHC
    working group for review.  The DHC working group did send comments back
    that were addressed by the authors.

6. Describe how the document meets any required formal expert review criteria,
   such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.

   There were no additional required reviews

7. If the document contains a YANG module, has the final version of the module
   been checked with any of the [recommended validation tools][4] for syntax and
   formatting validation? If there are any resulting errors or warnings, what is
   the justification for not fixing them at this time? Does the YANG module
   comply with the Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA) as specified
   in [RFC 8342][5]?


8. Describe reviews and automated checks performed to validate sections of the
   final version of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code,
   BNF rules, MIB definitions, CBOR's CDDL, etc.


## Document Shepherd Checks

9. Based on the shepherd's review of the document, is it their opinion that this
   document is needed, clearly written, complete, correctly designed, and ready
   to be handed off to the responsible Area Director?

  As document shepherd, I reviewed this document to assure that it is following
  the WG consensus and discussions and is of good quality. In my opinion, the
  document is ready for   publication.

10. Several IETF Areas have assembled [lists of common issues that their
    reviewers encounter][6]. For which areas have such issues been identified
    and addressed? For which does this still need to happen in subsequent

This is an IPv6 document that passed through both v6ops and dhc working groups.
There is no need for subsequent review from other areas.

11. What type of RFC publication is being requested on the IETF stream ([Best
    Current Practice][12], [Proposed Standard, Internet Standard][13],
    [Informational, Experimental or Historic][14])? Why is this the proper type
    of RFC? Do all Datatracker state attributes correctly reflect this intent?

    The RFC requested is Informational. And, this is appropriate for this
    document as it describes how to utilize DHCPv6 Prefix Delegation to assign
    prefixes to Devices.

12. Have reasonable efforts been made to remind all authors of the intellectual
    property rights (IPR) disclosure obligations described in [BCP 79][7]? To
    the best of your knowledge, have all required disclosures been filed? If
    not, explain why. If yes, summarize any relevant discussion, including links
    to publicly-available messages when applicable.

I reached out to authors about IPR and they responded they aren’t aware of any.

13. Has each author, editor, and contributor shown their willingness to be
    listed as such? If the total number of authors and editors on the front page
    is greater than five, please provide a justification.

Yes, all the authors have expressed interest in being listed.

14. Document any remaining I-D nits in this document. Simply running the [idnits
    tool][8] is not enough; please review the ["Content Guidelines" on][15]. (Also note that the current idnits tool generates
    some incorrect warnings; a rewrite is underway.)

    I was not able to find any additional nits.

15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the [IESG
    Statement on Normative and Informative References][16].

  Yes, every reference that I located had a valid reference.

16. List any normative references that are not freely available to anyone. Did
    the community have sufficient access to review any such normative

All references are publicly available.

17. Are there any normative downward references (see [RFC 3967][9] and [BCP
    97][10]) that are not already listed in the [DOWNREF registry][17]? If so,
    list them.

There are no downward references.

18. Are there normative references to documents that are not ready to be
    submitted to the IESG for publication or are otherwise in an unclear state?
    If so, what is the plan for their completion?


19. Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? If
    so, does the Datatracker metadata correctly reflect this and are those RFCs
    listed on the title page, in the abstract, and discussed in the
    introduction? If not, explain why and point to the part of the document
    where the relationship of this document to these other RFCs is discussed.

No, this document is stand alone.

20. 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 aspects of the document requiring IANA assignments are
    associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm
    that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm
    that each newly created IANA registry specifies its initial contents,
    allocations procedures, and a reasonable name (see [RFC 8126][11]).

This document requires no action from IANA.

21. List any new IANA registries that require Designated Expert Review for
    future allocations. Are the instructions to the Designated Expert clear?
    Please include suggestions of designated experts, if appropriate.