Using Dummy IPv4 Address and Node Identification Extensions for IP/ICMP translators (XLATs)
draft-ietf-v6ops-icmpext-xlat-v6only-source-01

# Shepherd document for draft-ietf-v6ops-icmpext-xlat-v6only-source

## 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?

A small number of regular contributors to the working group all commented upon the draft and broadly agreed that the document was in good shape, with no major outstanding concerns. There were no objections raised against the draft during WG adoption or WG LC.


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

None of the discussion points raised for the draft could be described as controversial in nature.


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.)

No indication or threat to appeal has been made.


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
  (where)?

None that I can see reference to in the draft, or the earlier intarea draft.

I see no reference to the draft/method at any Hackathons.

I do not see a discussion of this draft in recent v6ops meetings, and therefore no mention of implementations.


## 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.

There are overlaps with the intarea WG (concerning ICMP).

This draft was resubmitted to v6ops following an earlier draft submission to the intarea WG.

The Intarea WG were invited to comment when the WGLC was open, and no discussion nor review followed was posted to that mailing list.


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.

Not applicable.

The prior version of this draft, as submitted to the intarea WG, made a request of IANA, but that is no longer in the adopted v6ops WG draft.


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]?

N/A


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.

N/A


## 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?

The problem statement for the draft is well written and clear, and the draft addresses this problem coherently.

The draft goes into additional detail about prior work and why that work would not be suitable.


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
    reviews?

N/A

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?

This document is listed as Standards Track. As it changes behavior, this
is the correct document type.


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.

Yes, authors have disclosed that there are no IPR obligations. See mailing list link
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/v6ops/?q=draft-equinox-v6ops-icmpext-xlat-v6only-source


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, each author has agreed to be listed as an author of this document.


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
    authors.ietf.org][15]. (Also note that the current idnits tool generates
    some incorrect warnings; a rewrite is underway.)

Copyright date presently shows 2025.


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

No.


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

Not applicable

16. 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.
   
I-D.ietf-intarea-extended-icmp-nodeid

17. 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?

No. There is one normative reference to I-D.ietf-intarea-extended-icmp-nodeid, which
has been submitted to IESG for publication and awaiting an updated draft.

18. 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.

Yes, the document obsoletes RFC6791, Stateless Source Address Mapping for ICMPv6
Packets and updates RFC7915, IP/ICMP Translation Algorithm. It is correctly noted in the
current document.

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]).

Not applicable.

20. 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.
   
Not applicable.

# Shepherd document for draft-ietf-v6ops-icmpext-xlat-v6only-source

## 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?

A small number of regular contributors to the working group all commented upon the draft and broadly agreed that the document was in good shape, with no major outstanding concerns. There were no objections raised against the draft during WG adoption or WG LC.


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

None of the discussion points raised for the draft could be described as controversial in nature.


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.)

No indication or threat to appeal has been made.


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
  (where)?

None that I can see reference to in the draft, or the earlier intarea draft.

I see no reference to the draft/method at any Hackathons.

I do not see a discussion of this draft in recent v6ops meetings, and therefore no mention of implementations.


## 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.

There are overlaps with the intarea WG (concerning ICMP).

This draft was resubmitted to v6ops following an earlier draft submission to the intarea WG.

The Intarea WG were invited to comment when the WGLC was open, and no discussion nor review followed was posted to that mailing list.


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.

Not applicable.

The prior version of this draft, as submitted to the intarea WG, made a request of IANA, but that is no longer in the adopted v6ops WG draft.


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]?

N/A


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.

N/A


## 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?

The problem statement for the draft is well written and clear, and the draft addresses this problem coherently.

The draft goes into additional detail about prior work and why that work would not be suitable.


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
    reviews?

N/A

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?

This document is listed as Standards Track. As it changes behavior, this
is the correct document type.


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.

Yes, authors have disclosed that there are no IPR obligations. See mailing list link
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/v6ops/?q=draft-equinox-v6ops-icmpext-xlat-v6only-source


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, each author has agreed to be listed as an author of this document.


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
    authors.ietf.org][15]. (Also note that the current idnits tool generates
    some incorrect warnings; a rewrite is underway.)

Copyright date presently shows 2025.


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

No.


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

Not applicable

16. 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.
   
I-D.ietf-intarea-extended-icmp-nodeid

17. 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?

No. There is one normative reference to I-D.ietf-intarea-extended-icmp-nodeid, which
has been submitted to IESG for publication and awaiting an updated draft.

18. 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.

Yes, the document obsoletes RFC6791, Stateless Source Address Mapping for ICMPv6
Packets and updates RFC7915, IP/ICMP Translation Algorithm. It is correctly noted in the
current document.

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]).

Not applicable.

20. 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.
   
Not applicable.