Operational Issues with Processing of the Hop-by-Hop Options Header
draft-ietf-v6ops-hbh-10

As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document
Shepherd Write-Up. Changes are expected over time.

This version is dated 21 February 2024.

(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 type of RFC is Informational. This is appropriate as the document is
describing operational issues and not proposing new protocol.

This is indicated in the title header.

(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:

Relevant content can frequently be found in the abstract and/or introduction of
the document. If not, this may be an indication that there are deficiencies in
the abstract or introduction.

This document describes the processing of the Hop-by-Hop Options
Header (HBH) in current routers in the aspects of standards
specification, common implementations, and default operations.
The purpose of this draft is to document reasons why HBH Options Header is
rarely used within networks. It motivates the benefits and requirements
needed to enable wider use of HBH Options.

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?

Nick Hilliard raised issues about whether the material contained in the
draft was already covered by other RFCs (RFC8200, RFC9098, and
draft-hinden-6man-hbh-processing). The authors responded to Nick in WGLC
and revised the draft with no further objections.

Initially in WGLC, there we several questions on whether this document
was needed. The authors responded and seem to have answered the concerns.

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, YANG 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?

This document is describing existing implemenations and operations.
Nick Hilliard, Bob Hinden, and Gorry Fairhust were prominent reviewers.

Personnel:

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

Tom Herbert in the Document Shepherd, Warren "Ace" Kumari is the Responsible
Area Director.

(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 shepherd review carefully the document. Several points
for clarification and edits were raised in the review. The authors were
very quick to respond and make the requested changes.

I have no major concerns with the document and believe it is ready for
publication..

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

I have no concerns.

(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, reviews by v6ops WG should be sufficient.

(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.

I have no concerns, and the WG seems to have consensus.

(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?

Authors confirmed there are not aware of any IPR.

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

No.

(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?

Good consensus.

(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.

Results from IDnits:

idnits 2.17.1

draft.txt:

Checking boilerplate required by RFC 5378 and the IETF Trust (see
https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info):
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

No issues found here.

Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/1id-guidelines.txt:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

== Mismatching filename: the document gives the document name as
'draft-ietf-v6ops-hbh-10', but the file name used is 'draft'

== There are 13 instances of lines with non-ascii characters in the
document.

== It seems as if not all pages are separated by form feeds - found 0 form
feeds but 12 pages


Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist :
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

** There is 1 instance of too long lines in the document, the longest one
being 4 characters in excess of 72.


Miscellaneous warnings:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

No issues found here.

Checking references for intended status: Informational
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

== Unused Reference: 'RFC2711' is defined on line 461, but no explicit
reference was found in the text


Summary: 1 error (**), 0 flaws (~~), 4 warnings (==), 0 comments (--).

Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about
the items above.

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

This does not apply here.

(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. Two IDs have normative refences, they are both in WGLC.

(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.

This document does not change the status of any existing 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 8126).

There are no IANA considerations in this document

(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 no requests to IANA in this document

(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, YANG modules, etc.

Not applicable to this document.

(20) If the document contains a YANG module, has the module been checked with
any of the recommended validation tools
(https://trac.ietf.org/trac/ops/wiki/yang-review-tools) 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
RFC8342?

Not applicable to this document.