Expanding the IPv6 Documentation Space
draft-ietf-v6ops-rfc3849-update-05

Received changes through RFC Editor sync (changed state to RFC, created became rfc relationship between draft-ietf-v6ops-rfc3849-update and RFC 9637, changed IESG state to RFC Published)

[Ballot comment]
Thanks to Barry Leiba for his ARTART review.

I concur with Eric's remark about the IANA Considerations section, and would add that the first sentence doesn't seem to be complete.

[Ballot comment]
A short, nice, and useful document. Thanks for taking the time for authoring it.

Thanks to Ed Horley for the detailed shepherd write-up *but* there is no justification for the intended status (perhaps just a reference to RFC 3849 ?).

Nevertheless, I think that the document would benefit from:
- using RFC 5952 canonical IPv6 address representation (or at least stick to all lowercase or all uppercase)
- remove the BCP 14 template as it is *not* used (this will even make the I-D shorter ;-) )
- the IANA section should clearly mention "IANA IPv6 Special-Purpose Address Registry" in the text (and not only as a reference)

More important, I think that the security considerations should add something like "this /20 should be considered as bogon (add reference), i.e., packets whose src/dst belongs to this /20 should be dropped over the public Internet' (note the non-normative language).

(Via drafts-lastcall@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

IANA has completed its review of draft-ietf-v6ops-rfc3849-update-03. If any part of this review is inaccurate, please let us know.

IANA understands that, upon approval of this document, there is a single action which we must complete.

In the IANA IPv6 Special-Purpose Address Registry located at:

https://www.iana.org/assignments/iana-ipv6-special-registry/

a single new address block will be reserved for documentation purposes as follows:

Address Block: [ TBD-at-Registration ]::/20
Name: Documentation
RFC: [ RFC-to-be ]
Allocation Date: [ TBD-at-Registration ]
Termination Date: N/A
Source: False
Destination: False
Forwardable: False
Globally Reachable: False
Reserved-by-Protocol: False

We understand that this is the only action required to be completed upon approval of this document.

NOTE: The action requested in this document will not be completed until the document has been approved for publication as an RFC. This message is meant only to confirm the action that will be performed.

For definitions of IANA review states, please see:

https://datatracker.ietf.org/help/state/draft/iana-review

Thank you,

David Dong
IANA Services Sr. Specialist

The following Last Call announcement was sent out (ends 2024-06-12):

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC: draft-ietf-v6ops-rfc3849-update@ietf.org, ed@hexabuild.io, v6ops-chairs@ietf.org, v6ops@ietf.org, warren@kumari.net
Reply-To: last-call@ietf.org
Sender:
Subject: Last Call:  (Expanding the IPv6 Documentation Space) to Informational RFC


The IESG has received a request from the IPv6 Operations WG (v6ops) to
consider the following document: - 'Expanding the IPv6 Documentation Space'
  as Informational RFC

The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits final
comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the
last-call@ietf.org mailing lists by 2024-06-12. Exceptionally, comments may
be sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the beginning
of the Subject line to allow automated sorting.

Abstract


  The document describes the reservation of an additional IPv6 address
  prefix for use in documentation.  This update to RFC 3849 expands on
  the existing 2001:db8::/32 address block with the reservation of an
  additional, larger prefix.  The addition of a /20 allows documented
  examples to more closely reflect a broader range of realistic,
  current deployment scenarios and more closely aligns with
  contemporary allocation models for large networks.




The file can be obtained via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-v6ops-rfc3849-update/



No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D.

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 an robust and rapid email discussion.  In the end there was
general consensus that additional documentation space was needed however the
size and/or quantity of prefixes and if they should be from the global unicast
address space or made up fake space lacked consensus. A few individuals
proposed using made up or fake address space that does not conform to the
RFC standards for IPv6 addresses.  The working group chairs called for
consensus on the document, which caused some additional emails about the
nature and size and number of prefixes that are documented below.


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

There were several concerns around allocating documentation prefix(es) from
current global unicast address space. These concerns mainly fell into two groups.
First was the concern that improper filters or configuration would route these
addresses accidentially. The second was that the allocation would break up
currently contigeous space from the larger /3 allocations held in reserve.

There were also concerns expresseed about using global unicast address space at
all. The proposal for using completely made up or fake address space posses
several concerns. The first being it would not be possible to use the addresses
in a lab or on equipment since they are likely checking for RFC conformance of
the addresses. This means the documentation prefix would be narrowly, and
artifically limited in practical uses. The advantages would be it would never
leak or accidentially be used in any production environment as they are not
legal/legitimate addresses.

Finally, there was debate on the total number of allocated prefixes, with
some proposing for additional (perhaps smaller) allocations. The draft proposes
a single /20 and there was rough concensus that this would be sufficent and if
additional documentation prefix was needed later, an update could be made to
obtain it.

It appeared that using a new allocation, not from the current 2000::/3, that
is a single /20, with a unique enough left nibble numbering to be distinct
from the current documentation prefix would work for the majority who responded.


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.)

There was no outright threat or disagreement in the mail list exchange.


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 recommends) or elsewhere
(where)?

N/A - This document is to provide additional documentation prefix and should
no impact the protocol. For operators, the new prefix would have to be added to
any filters or lists once a prefix has been allocated from IANA.


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 is a v6ops working group document. It might make sense to have it reviewed
by 6man for comments and feedback however I believe many of the same individuals
participate in both working groups and are likely aware of this document. I do
not believe any other working group except dnsops and grow for informational
purposes. For dnsops, just for their awareness, for grow to add the prefix to any
operational bogon or filter lists they are maintaining in any operational docs.
Optionally, this could wait until after IANA allocates an actual prefix.


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.

No additional review criteria is required.


7. If the document contains a YANG module, has the final version of the module
been checked with any of the recommended validation 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 RFC 8342?

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?

Yes, the only outstanding item is the actual prefix, if the working group
would like to request a specific documentation prefix, or alternatively,
allow IANA to assign one based on any internal standards or address allocation
planning they have in place.
The document is clear, of good quality, is a minor update and is ready for
publication outside of the prefix issue identified above.


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

This is an IPv6 document that passed through the v6ops working group.
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, 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?

Informational.


12. Have reasonable efforts been made to remind all authors of the intellectual
property rights (IPR) disclosure obligations described in BCP 79? 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.

Authors have acknowledged and indicated no claims for IPR.


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.

Authors have acknowledged they are willing to be listed.


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

I was unable to find any obvious nits in the document.


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

I believe there is one change required, to make the listed RFC3849 Informative
Reference (which this document is updating) into a Normative Reference. It
would be impossible to know the other requirements outlined in the original
without reading it or referencing it.


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

All normative references are freely available.


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

There are none.


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?

N/A


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.

Yes, it is an update to RFC3849 and will therefore replace/update that RFC.
I do not believe any other changes are required unless a new RFC number is
issues in which case other RFC references to the existing 3849 will need to
be updated.

It may also require an update to RFC6890 (updated by RFC8190 - which would not
require any update) to include the new documentation prefix assigned.

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).

The associated IANA registries that are not known at the time of submission
are listed correctly in the draft. The Address Block, RFC, and Allocation
Date will be set after IETF/IESG approves the draft. The settings conform to
https://www.iana.org/assignments/iana-ipv6-special-registry/iana-ipv6-special-registry.xhtml


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.

N/A

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 an robust and rapid email discussion.  In the end there was
general consensus that additional documentation space was needed however the
size and/or quantity of prefixes and if they should be from the global unicast
address space or made up fake space lacked consensus. A few individuals
proposed using made up or fake address space that does not conform to the
RFC standards for IPv6 addresses.  The working group chairs called for
consensus on the document, which caused some additional emails about the
nature and size and number of prefixes that are documented below.


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

There were several concerns around allocating documentation prefix(es) from
current global unicast address space. These concerns mainly fell into two groups.
First was the concern that improper filters or configuration would route these
addresses accidentially. The second was that the allocation would break up
currently contigeous space from the larger /3 allocations held in reserve.

There were also concerns expresseed about using global unicast address space at
all. The proposal for using completely made up or fake address space posses
several concerns. The first being it would not be possible to use the addresses
in a lab or on equipment since they are likely checking for RFC conformance of
the addresses. This means the documentation prefix would be narrowly, and
artifically limited in practical uses. The advantages would be it would never
leak or accidentially be used in any production environment as they are not
legal/legitimate addresses.

Finally, there was debate on the total number of allocated prefixes, with
some proposing for additional (perhaps smaller) allocations. The draft proposes
a single /20 and there was rough concensus that this would be sufficent and if
additional documentation prefix was needed later, an update could be made to
obtain it.

It appeared that using a new allocation, not from the current 2000::/3, that
is a single /20, with a unique enough left nibble numbering to be distinct
from the current documentation prefix would work for the majority who responded.


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.)

There was no outright threat or disagreement in the mail list exchange.


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 recommends) or elsewhere
(where)?

N/A - This document is to provide additional documentation prefix and should
no impact the protocol. For operators, the new prefix would have to be added to
any filters or lists once a prefix has been allocated from IANA.


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 is a v6ops working group document. It might make sense to have it reviewed
by 6man for comments and feedback however I believe many of the same individuals
participate in both working groups and are likely aware of this document. I do
not believe any other working group except dnsops and grow for informational
purposes. For dnsops, just for their awareness, for grow to add the prefix to any
operational bogon or filter lists they are maintaining in any operational docs.
Optionally, this could wait until after IANA allocates an actual prefix.


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.

No additional review criteria is required.


7. If the document contains a YANG module, has the final version of the module
been checked with any of the recommended validation 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 RFC 8342?

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?

Yes, the only outstanding item is the actual prefix, if the working group
would like to request a specific documentation prefix, or alternatively,
allow IANA to assign one based on any internal standards or address allocation
planning they have in place.
The document is clear, of good quality, is a minor update and is ready for
publication outside of the prefix issue identified above.


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

This is an IPv6 document that passed through the v6ops working group.
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, 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?

Informational.


12. Have reasonable efforts been made to remind all authors of the intellectual
property rights (IPR) disclosure obligations described in BCP 79? 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.

Authors have acknowledged and indicated no claims for IPR.


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.

Authors have acknowledged they are willing to be listed.


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

I was unable to find any obvious nits in the document.


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

I believe there is one change required, to make the listed RFC3849 Informative
Reference (which this document is updating) into a Normative Reference. It
would be impossible to know the other requirements outlined in the original
without reading it or referencing it.


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

All normative references are freely available.


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

There are none.


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?

N/A


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.

Yes, it is an update to RFC3849 and will therefore replace/update that RFC.
I do not believe any other changes are required unless a new RFC number is
issues in which case other RFC references to the existing 3849 will need to
be updated.

It may also require an update to RFC6890 (updated by RFC8190 - which would not
require any update) to include the new documentation prefix assigned.

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).

The associated IANA registries that are not known at the time of submission
are listed correctly in the draft. The Address Block, RFC, and Allocation
Date will be set after IETF/IESG approves the draft. The settings conform to
https://www.iana.org/assignments/iana-ipv6-special-registry/iana-ipv6-special-registry.xhtml


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.

N/A

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 an robust and rapid email discussion.  In the end there was
general consensus that additional documentation space was needed however the
size and/or quantity of prefixes and if they should be from the global unicast
address space or made up fake space lacked consensus. A few individuals
proposed using made up or fake address space that does not conform to the
RFC standards for IPv6 addresses.  The working group chairs called for
consensus on the document, which caused some additional emails about the
nature and size and number of prefixes that are documented below.


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

There were several concerns around allocating documentation prefix(es) from
current global unicast address space. These concerns mainly fell into two groups.
First was the concern that improper filters or configuration would route these
addresses accidentially. The second was that the allocation would break up
currently contigeous space from the larger /3 allocations held in reserve.

There were also concerns expresseed about using global unicast address space at
all. The proposal for using completely made up or fake address space posses
several concerns. The first being it would not be possible to use the addresses
in a lab or on equipment since they are likely checking for RFC conformance of
the addresses. This means the documentation prefix would be narrowly, and
artifically limited in practical uses. The advantages would be it would never
leak or accidentially be used in any production environment as they are not
legal/legitimate addresses.

Finally, there was debate on the total number of allocated prefixes, with
some proposing for additional (perhaps smaller) allocations. The draft proposes
a single /20 and there was rough concensus that this would be sufficent and if
additional documentation prefix was needed later, an update could be made to
obtain it.

It appeared that using a new allocation, not from the current 2000::/3, that
is a single /20, with a unique enough left nibble numbering to be distinct
from the current documentation prefix would work for the majority who responded.


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.)

There was no outright threat or disagreement in the mail list exchange.


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 recommends) or elsewhere
(where)?

N/A - This document is to provide additional documentation prefix and should
no impact the protocol. For operators, the new prefix would have to be added to
any filters or lists once a prefix has been allocated from IANA.


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 is a v6ops working group document. It might make sense to have it reviewed
by 6man for comments and feedback however I believe many of the same individuals
participate in both working groups and are likely aware of this document. I do
not believe any other working group except dnsops and grow for informational
purposes. For dnsops, just for their awareness, for grow to add the prefix to any
operational bogon or filter lists they are maintaining in any operational docs.
Optionally, this could wait until after IANA allocates an actual prefix.


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.

No additional review criteria is required.


7. If the document contains a YANG module, has the final version of the module
been checked with any of the recommended validation 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 RFC 8342?

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?

Yes, the only outstanding item is the actual prefix, if the working group
would like to request a specific documentation prefix, or alternatively,
allow IANA to assign one based on any internal standards or address allocation
planning they have in place.
The document is clear, of good quality, is a minor update and is ready for
publication outside of the prefix issue identified above.


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

This is an IPv6 document that passed through the v6ops working group.
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, 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?

Informational.


12. Have reasonable efforts been made to remind all authors of the intellectual
property rights (IPR) disclosure obligations described in BCP 79? 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.

Authors have acknowledged and indicated no claims for IPR.


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.

Authors have acknowledged they are willing to be listed.


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

I was unable to find any obvious nits in the document.


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

I believe there is one change required, to make the listed RFC3849 Informative
Reference (which this document is updating) into a Normative Reference. It
would be impossible to know the other requirements outlined in the original
without reading it or referencing it.


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

All normative references are freely available.


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

There are none.


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?

N/A


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.

Yes, it is an update to RFC3849 and will therefore replace/update that RFC.
I do not believe any other changes are required unless a new RFC number is
issues in which case other RFC references to the existing 3849 will need to
be updated.


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).

The associated IANA registries that are not known at the time of submission
are listed correctly in the draft. The Address Block, RFC, and Allocation
Date will be set after IETF/IESG approves the draft. The settings conform to
https://www.iana.org/assignments/iana-ipv6-special-registry/iana-ipv6-special-registry.xhtml


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.

N/A

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 an robust and rapid email discussion.  In the end there was
general consensus that additional documentation space was needed however the
size and/or quantity of prefixes and if they should be from the global unicast
address space or made up fake space lacked consensus. A few individuals
proposed using made up or fake address space that does not conform to the
RFC standards for IPv6 addresses.  The working group chairs called for
consensus on the document, which caused some additional emails about the
nature and size and number of prefixes that are documented below.


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

There were several concerns around allocating documentation prefix(es) from
current global unicast address space. These concerns mainly fell into two groups.
First was the concern that improper filters or configuration would route these
addresses accidentially. The second was that the allocation would break up
currently contigeous space from the larger /3 allocations held in reserve.

There were also concerns expresseed about using global unicast address space at
all. The proposal for using completely made up or fake address space posses
several concerns. The first being it would not be possible to use the addresses
in a lab or on equipment since they are likely checking for RFC conformance of
the addresses. This means the documentation prefix would be narrowly, and
artifically limited in practical uses. The advantages would be it would never
leak or accidentially be used in any production environment as they are not
legal/legitimate addresses.

Finally, there was debate on the total number of allocated prefixes, with
some proposing for additional (perhaps smaller) allocations. The draft proposes
a single /20 and there was rough concensus that this would be sufficent and if
additional documentation prefix was needed later, an update could be made to
obtain it.

It appeared that using a new allocation, not from the current 2000::/3, that
is a single /20, with a unique enough left nibble numbering to be distinct
from the current documentation prefix would work for the majority who responded.


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.)

There was no outright threat or disagreemnt in the mail list exchange. I do not
know if there were any voiced at the mic at IETF 118 or 119.


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 recommends) or elsewhere
(where)?

N/A - This document is to provide additional documentation prefix and should
no impact the protocol. For operators, the new prefix would have to be added to
any filters or lists once a prefix has been allocated from IANA.


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 is a v6ops working group document. It might make sense to have it reviewed
by 6man for comments and feedback however I believe many of the same individuals
participate in both working groups and are likely aware of this document. I do
not believe any other working group except dnsops and grow for informational
purposes. For dnsops, just for their awareness, for grow to add the prefix to any
operational bogon or filter lists they are maintaining in any operational docs.
Optionally, this could wait until after IANA allocates an actual prefix.


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.

No additional review criteria is required.


7. If the document contains a YANG module, has the final version of the module
been checked with any of the recommended validation 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 RFC 8342?

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?

Yes, the only outstanding item is the actual prefix, if the working group
would like to request a specific documentation prefix, or alternatively,
allow IANA to assign one based on any internal standards or address allocation
planning they have in place.
The document is clear, of good quality, is a minor update and is ready for
publication outside of the prefix issue identified above.


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

This is an IPv6 document that passed through the v6ops working group.
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, 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 existing RFC3849 is an Informational status, this is a simple update to
that RFC, I would assume this would also stay Informational. The status needs
to be updated on the Datatracker site.


12. Have reasonable efforts been made to remind all authors of the intellectual
property rights (IPR) disclosure obligations described in BCP 79? 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.

Authors have acknowledged and indicated no concerns for IPR.


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.

Authors have acknowledged they are willing to be listed.


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

I was unable to find any obvious nits in the document.


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

I believe there is one change required, to make the listed RFC3849 Informative
Reference (which this document is updating) into a Normative Reference. It
would be impossible to know the other requirements outlined in the original
without reading it or referencing it.


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

All nornative references are freely available.


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

There are none.


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?

N/A


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.

Yes, it is an update to RFC3849 and will therefore replace/update that RFC.
I do not believe any other changes are required unless a new RFC number is
issues in which case other RFC references to the existing 3849 will need to
be updated.


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).

The associated IANA regiestries that are not known at the time of submission
are listed correctly in the draft. The Address Block, RFC, and Allocation
Date will be set after IETF/IESG approves the draft. The settings conform to
https://www.iana.org/assignments/iana-ipv6-special-registry/iana-ipv6-special-registry.xhtml


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.

N/A

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 an robust and rapid email discussion.  In the end there was
general consensus that additional documentation space was needed however the
size and/or quantity of prefixes and if they should be from the global unicast
address space or made up fake space lacked consensus. A few individuals
proposed using made up or fake address space that does not conform to the
RFC standards for IPv6 addresses.  The working group chairs called for
consensus on the document, which caused some additional emails about the
nature and size and number of prefixes that are documented below.


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

There were several concerns around allocating documentation prefix(es) from
current global unicast address space. These concerns mainly fell into two groups.
First was the concern that improper filters or configuration would route these
addresses accidentially. The second was that the allocation would break up
currently contigeous space from the larger /3 allocations held in reserve.

There were also concerns expresseed about using global unicast address space at
all. The proposal for using completely made up or fake address space posses
several concerns. The first being it would not be possible to use the addresses
in a lab or on equipment since they are likely checking for RFC conformance of
the addresses. This means the documentation prefix would be narrowly, and
artifically limited in practical uses. The advantages would be it would never
leak or accidentially be used in any production environment as they are not
legal/legitimate addresses.

Finally, there was debate on the total number of allocated prefixes, with
some proposing for additional (perhaps smaller) allocations. The draft proposes
a single /20 and there was rough concensus that this would be sufficent and if
additional documentation prefix was needed later, an update could be made to
obtain it.

It appeared that using a new allocation, not from the current 2000::/3, that
is a single /20, with a unique enough left nibble numbering to be distinct
from the current documentation prefix would work for the majority who responded.


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.)

There was no outright threat or disagreemnt in the mail list exchange. I do not
know if there were any voiced at the mic at IETF 118 or 119.


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 recommends) or elsewhere
(where)?

N/A - This document is to provide additional documentation prefix and should
no impact the protocol. For operators, the new prefix would have to be added to
any filters or lists once a prefix has been allocated from IANA.


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 is a v6ops working group document. It might make sense to have it reviewed
by 6man for comments and feedback however I believe many of the same individuals
participate in both working groups and are likely aware of this document. I do
not believe any other working group except dnsops and grow for informational
purposes. For dnsops, just for their awareness, for grow to add the prefix to any
operational bogon or filter lists they are maintaining in any operational docs.
Optionally, this could wait until after IANA allocates an actual prefix.


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.

No additional review criteria is required.


7. If the document contains a YANG module, has the final version of the module
been checked with any of the recommended validation 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 RFC 8342?

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?

Yes, the only outstanding item is the actual prefix, if the working group
would like to request a specific documentation prefix, or alternatively,
allow IANA to assign one based on any internal standards or address allocation
planning they have in place.
The document is clear, of good quality, is a minor update and is ready for
publication outside of the prefix issue identified above.


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

This is an IPv6 document that passed through the v6ops working group.
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, 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 existing RFC3849 is an Informational status, this is a simple update to
that RFC, I would assume this would also stay Informational. The status needs
to be updated on the Datatracker site.


12. Have reasonable efforts been made to remind all authors of the intellectual
property rights (IPR) disclosure obligations described in BCP 79? 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.

Authors have acknowledged and indicated no concerns for IPR.


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.

Authors have acknowledged they are willing to be listed.


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

< need to figure out>

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

I believe there is one change required, to make the listed RFC3849 Informative
Reference (which this document is updating) into a Normative Reference. It
would be impossible to know the other requirements outlined in the original
without reading it or referencing it.


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

All nornative references are freely available.


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

There are none.


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?

N/A


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.

Yes, it is an update to RFC3849 and will therefore replace/update that RFC.
I do not believe any other changes are required unless a new RFC number is
issues in which case other RFC references to the existing 3849 will need to
be updated.


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).

The associated IANA regiestries that are not known at the time of submission
are listed correctly in the draft. The Address Block, RFC, and Allocation
Date will be set after IETF/IESG approves the draft. The settings conform to
https://www.iana.org/assignments/iana-ipv6-special-registry/iana-ipv6-special-registry.xhtml


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.

N/A