Document History
For Documents Coming from IETF Working Groups
• Does the working group (WG) consensus represent the strong
concurrence of a few individuals, with others being silent, or did it
reach broad agreement? • Was there controversy about particular points,
or were there decisions where the consensus was particularly rough?
Broad agreement. No objections were raised.
• 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 such action has been threatened.
• 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 recommends) or elsewhere (where)?
Not applicable
Additional Reviews
• Does this document need review from other IETF working groups or
external organizations? Have those reviews occurred?
No
• Describe how the document meets any required formal expert review
criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type
reviews.
Since it is an informational document on global IPv6 deployment, no specific
formal expert review is necessary
Document Shepherd Checks
• 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?
Yes.
• Several IETF Areas have assembled lists of common issues that their
reviewers encounter. Do any such issues remain that would merit
specific attention from subsequent reviews?
Not really. It makes a number of factual statements, which can be independently
verified. Some of the topics listed are mentioned in the draft, but only to
describe the current IPv6 status without proposing any change to existing
protocols. No specific issues apply to this document.
• What type of RFC publication is being requested on the IETF stream
(Best Current Practice, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard,
Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? Why is this the proper type
of RFC? Do all Datatracker state attributes correctly reflect this
intent?
The document is Informational because it intends to propose an update on the
status of IPv6. In the IETF stream, it has always been Informational.
• Has the interested community confirmed that any and all appropriate
IPR disclosures required by BCP 78 and BCP 79 have been filed? If not,
explain why. If yes, summarize any discussion and conclusion regarding
the intellectual property rights (IPR) disclosures, including links to
relevant emails.
The authors confirm that there is no any formal IPR that applies to this
document.
• Has each Author or Contributor confirmed their willingness to be
listed as such? If the number of Authors/Editors on the front page is
greater than 5, please provide a justification.
Every author / contributor has confirmed their willingness. The number of
authors on the front page is 6 because everyone contributed in some way to
develop the text.
• Identify any remaining I-D nits in this document. (See the idnits
tool and the checkbox items found in Guidelines to Authors of
Internet-Drafts). Simply running the idnits tool is not enough; please
review the entire guidelines document.
A. Done. [Note for Fred: we will run the idnits check before submitting the new
version that addresses the comments of the WGLC]
• Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa?
A. No. [Note for Fred: please double check that references are correct].
• List any normative references that are not freely available to
anyone. Did the community have sufficient access to review any such
normative references?
A. All references are publicly available.
• Are there any normative downward references (see RFC 3967, BCP 97)?
If so, list them.
A. None applicable
• Are there normative references to documents that are not ready for
advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state? If they exist, what
is the plan for their completion?
A. No.
• 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.
A. RFC 6036 will be obsoleted.
• 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).
A. The document has no IANA actions.
• 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.
A. Not applicable.