Shepherd writeup
rfc8273-13

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 24 February 2012.

(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?

This draft is intended for publication as BCP. It doesn't need to be PS
because it doesn't change SLAAC or DHCPv6. However, it does explain
how and why those protocols might be used to assign a a prefix to a host
(as opposed to an address).

(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

   In some IPv6 environments the need has arisen for hosts to be able to
   utilise a unique IPv6 prefix even though the link or media may be
   shared.  Typically hosts (subscribers) on a shared network, either
   wired or wireless, such as Ethernet, WiFi, etc., will acquire unique
   IPv6 addresses from a common IPv6 prefix that is allocated or
   assigned for use on a specific link.

   In most deployments today IPv6 address assignment from a single IPv6
   prefix on a shared network is done by either using IPv6 stateless
   address auto-configuration (SLAAC) and/or stateful DHCPv6.  While
   this is still viable and operates as designed there are some large
   scale environments where this concept introduces significant
   performance challenges and implications, specifically related to IPv6
   router and neighbor discovery.

   This document outlines an approach utilising existing IPv6 protocols
   to allow hosts to be assigned a unique IPv6 prefix (instead of a
   unique IPv6 address from a shared IPv6 prefix).  Benefits of a unique
   IPv6 prefix compared to a unique IPv6 address from the service
   provider are going from improved subscriber isolation to enhanced
   subscriber management.

Working Group Summary

This draft elicited significant discussion on the WG mailing list, up to 
and including the WGLC. All issues have been resolved

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, 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 draft was reviewed by the shepherd and several members of the WG.

Personnel

  Ron Bonica is the Document Shepherd. Warren 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 is ready for publication. It is a very short document that 
requires only a cursory understanding of SLAAC and DHCPv6. In either case,
it is fairly obvious that the procedures described in this document will work
without any protocol changes.

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

No

(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.

Additional reviews have been requested from OPSDIR, INTDIR and 
GENART. Reviews are due on 4/28 and the document will not appear 
on a telechat agenda before then.

(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.

During the GENART Review, Joel Halpren said that the document should
be published as INFORMATIONAL, not BCP. The authors and the WG
felt that it should be BCP. Lacking a clear definition of BCP requirements,
we decided to defer this decision to the IESG.


(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.

Yes

(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? 

Consensus is strong

(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 https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts
Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be
thorough.

- The document uses 2119 language but doesn't have a reference to RFC 2119
- The document has an obsolete reference to RFC 6106 (obsoleted by 8106)

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

N/A

(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. All references are to RFCs

(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.

No

(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).

This document requires no actions from IANA

(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.

N/A

(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.

I ran the IETF Nit-check tool
Back