(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 title page, and working group discussion, requests BCP 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 recommends that networks provide general-purpose end
hosts with multiple global IPv6 addresses when they attach, and
describes the benefits of and the options for doing so.
Working Group Summary
This particular draft has not been controversial; it borders on
stating the obvious, and certainly states a consensus of IPv6
operators and designers in the IETF. It does, however, recommend
a change from current general practice with DHCP/DHCPv6,
a change that the author's companies are explicitly exploring and
finding useful, which is to allocate a prefix to a host rather than
a single address.
This is not a protocol, it is a proposal regarding IPv6 protocol
deployment practice. That said, yes, there are multiple implementations.
Windows, MacOSX, Linux, and other operating systems expect to use
multiple addresses in the same prefix simultaneously, and common
practice using SLAAC directly supports this. The issue has to do with
DHCP/DHCPv6 address allocation, which a network operator might restrict
to a single address unnecessarily.
The Document Shepherd is Fred Baker.
The AD is Joel Jaegli.
(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
When the initial draft was posted (July 2015), I read it and suggested to
the working group that this might express an existing consensus and
be worth simply sending in. There was discussion, which I followed.
I have read versions 4 and 5 of the draft, and agree with its comments.
(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
I don't think it needs review, per se, but it would be worth ensuring
that the DHCP Working Group is aware of it, as the topic may affect
their thinking. The draft mentions DHCP-PD deployment to a host, as
opposed to to a network, which is being experimented with in multiple
scenarios and discussed in the IETF. NVO3 may also be interested.
(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 am comfortable with the document and its recommendations.
(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.
(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document?
If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR
(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?
I would describe the consensus behind this document as "very solid".
(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 https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts
Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be
In section 9.2, the draft comments on the use of RFC 1918 addresses
in IPv4 networks, and specifically mentions two of those prefixes.
The mention is accurate.
The "security considerations" section could be described as "minimal".
That said, the statement is accurate: no security considerations
have been identified.
(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review
criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.
It doesn't need that.
(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.
(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.
(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).
There are no requests made to IANA, and that is stated to be the case.
(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.
(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.