Skip to main content

Recommendations for Prefix Binding in the Context of Softwire Dual-Stack Lite
draft-vinapamula-softwire-dslite-prefix-binding-12

Revision differences

Document history

Date Rev. By Action
2016-02-16
12 (System) RFC Editor state changed to AUTH48-DONE from AUTH48
2016-02-10
12 (System) RFC Editor state changed to AUTH48 from RFC-EDITOR
2016-02-10
12 (System) RFC Editor state changed to RFC-EDITOR from EDIT
2015-12-31
12 Jean Mahoney Closed request for Last Call review by GENART with state 'No Response'
2015-12-14
12 (System) IANA Action state changed to No IC from In Progress
2015-12-10
12 (System) RFC Editor state changed to EDIT
2015-12-10
12 (System) IANA Action state changed to In Progress
2015-12-09
12 Nevil Brownlee ISE state changed to Sent to the RFC Editor from In IESG Review
2015-12-09
12 Nevil Brownlee Sent request for publication to the RFC Editor
2015-12-09
12 Ben Campbell
[Ballot comment]
I'm clearing the discuss because this went to the ISE.

-- 1, 2nd to last paragraph:
I'm a little confused by the statement …
[Ballot comment]
I'm clearing the discuss because this went to the ISE.

-- 1, 2nd to last paragraph:
I'm a little confused by the statement that the privacy-related requirements are out of scope, since there is a recently-added privacy considerations section. Is the "out of scope" assertion still accurate?  (If so, it seems a shame not to at least have some discussion about why it would be out of scope.)

Nits:

--1, first paragraph: "...derive IPv6 addresses out of that prefix."
s/out of/from
Please expand "DS-Lite" on first mention in the body (independently from the expansion in the abstract.)

-- 2, first paragraph: "...hosts serviced by a B4 element are overlapping across multiple CPEs..."
s/are overlapping/overlap
2015-12-09
12 Ben Campbell [Ballot Position Update] Position for Ben Campbell has been changed to No Objection from Discuss
2015-11-04
12 (System) IANA Review state changed to IANA OK - No Actions Needed from Version Changed - Review Needed
2015-11-04
12 Amanda Baber
(Via drafts-eval@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

IANA has reviewed draft-vinapamula-softwire-dslite-prefix-binding-12 and has the following comments:

We understand that this document doesn't require any IANA actions.

While …
(Via drafts-eval@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

IANA has reviewed draft-vinapamula-softwire-dslite-prefix-binding-12 and has the following comments:

We understand that this document doesn't require any IANA actions.

While it's often helpful for a document's IANA Considerations section to remain in place upon publication even if there are no actions, if the authors strongly prefer to remove it, IANA does not object.

If this assessment is not accurate, please respond as soon as possible.
2015-11-04
12 Nevil Brownlee ISE state changed to In IESG Review from Response to Review Needed
2015-11-04
12 Nevil Brownlee IETF conflict review initiated - see conflict-review-vinapamula-softwire-dslite-prefix-binding
2015-11-04
12 Nevil Brownlee
ISE comments ...

This draft was in the IETF stream, and reached its consensus ballot
(DataTracker still has an IESG Status for it), then it …
ISE comments ...

This draft was in the IETF stream, and reached its consensus ballot
(DataTracker still has an IESG Status for it), then it was passed
across to the Independent Stream.  At that point it had received
a lot of reviews.

This draft was reviewed for me by Senthil Sivakumar, who suggested
some changes; its principal author has made those changes in response
to that feedback.

This draft has no IANA Considerations.

- - - - - - -

(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?

BCP

(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

  This document discusses issues induced by the change of the Dual-
  Stack Lite (DS-Lite) Basic Bridging BroadBand (B4) IPv6 address and
  sketches a set of recommendations to solve those issues.

Working Group Summary

N/A

Document Quality

This document has been reviewed by several individuals (refer to the
ACK section of the document).

Personnel

Who is the Document Shepherd? Who is the Responsible Area Director?

Mohamed Boucadair is the document shepherd. Terry Manderson is the
responsible AD.

(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.

I thoroughly reviewed the document and, as a co-author, I integrated the
detailed comments raised so far. This document is ready for publication.

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

I have no concern with the latest version of the document.

(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.

N/A 

(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 interested community has discussed those
issues and has indicated that it still wishes to advance the document,
detail those concerns here.

I have no particular concern with this document.

(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, the authors, Mohamed Boucadair and Suresh Vinapamula, did confirm
they are not aware of any IPR.

(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If so,
summarize any discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures.

No.

(9) How solid is the consensus of the interested community behind this
document? Does it represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals,
with others being silent, or does the interested community as a whole
understand and agree with it?

Not applicable. This document is not a product of an existing WG. 

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

All received comments were addressed. This document is ID nits clean.

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

No MIB Doctor, media type, URI type or similar apply to this document.

(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.

(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
interested community 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).

ISE



This document does not require any action 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.

Not applicable.

(19) Describe reviews and automated checks performed by to validate
sections of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code,
BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc.

Not applicable.
2015-10-19
12 Mohamed Boucadair New version available: draft-vinapamula-softwire-dslite-prefix-binding-12.txt
2015-10-18
11 Nevil Brownlee ISE state changed to Response to Review Needed from Finding Reviewers
2015-10-14
11 (System) Notify list changed from mohamed.boucadair@orange.com, sureshk@juniper.net, draft-vinapamula-softwire-dslite-prefix-binding.shepherd@ietf.org, draft-vinapamula-softwire-dslite-prefix-binding.ad@ietf.org, draft-vinapamula-softwire-dslite-prefix-binding@ietf.org, "Nevil Brownlee" < to (None)
2015-09-14
11 Nevil Brownlee ISE state changed to Finding Reviewers
2015-09-14
11 Nevil Brownlee
2015-09-14
11 Nevil Brownlee Document shepherd changed to Nevil Brownlee
2015-09-14
11 Nevil Brownlee Intended Status changed to Informational from Best Current Practice
2015-09-14
11 Nevil Brownlee Change to Informational in the Independent Stream
2015-09-14
11 Nevil Brownlee Stream changed to ISE from IETF
2015-09-01
11 Gunter Van de Velde Closed request for Last Call review by OPSDIR with state 'No Response'
2015-08-21
11 Mohamed Boucadair New version available: draft-vinapamula-softwire-dslite-prefix-binding-11.txt
2015-08-19
10 Mohamed Boucadair IANA Review state changed to Version Changed - Review Needed from IANA OK - No Actions Needed
2015-08-19
10 Mohamed Boucadair New version available: draft-vinapamula-softwire-dslite-prefix-binding-10.txt
2015-08-19
09 Terry Manderson Removed from agenda for telechat
2015-08-19
09 Terry Manderson IESG state changed to Waiting for AD Go-Ahead from IESG Evaluation
2015-08-19
09 Kathleen Moriarty [Ballot comment]
I agree with the concerns that this should not be a BCP and question the process path for this draft.
2015-08-19
09 Kathleen Moriarty [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Kathleen Moriarty
2015-08-19
09 Cindy Morgan Changed consensus to Yes from Unknown
2015-08-19
09 Ben Campbell
[Ballot discuss]
I share Barry's and Alvaro's concern about the lack of evidence of community consensus for this to be published as a BCP. But …
[Ballot discuss]
I share Barry's and Alvaro's concern about the lack of evidence of community consensus for this to be published as a BCP. But I further question whether it should be a BCP in the first place. The shepherd write up doesn't say why it should be a BCP (which, by the way, is an explicit question in the template.) There are normative requirements that appear to be externally observable (especially bullets 3 and 4), which makes me wonder why this is not a PS. (And I note that versions 00 and 01 were listed as standards track.) It's also not clear to me whether the recommendations are the consensus of the community, or just the recommendations of the authors, which might even argue for "informational".

I think given the questions about the RFC type combined with the consensus questions make this rise to the level of a DISCUSS. Hopefully this can be cleared easily with an explanation of why this is a BCP, and a clarification of the consensus issues.
2015-08-19
09 Ben Campbell
[Ballot comment]
-- 1, 2nd to last paragraph:
I'm a little confused by the statement that the privacy-related requirements are out of scope, since there …
[Ballot comment]
-- 1, 2nd to last paragraph:
I'm a little confused by the statement that the privacy-related requirements are out of scope, since there is a recently-added privacy considerations section. Is the "out of scope" assertion still accurate?  (If so, it seems a shame not to at least have some discussion about why it would be out of scope.)

Nits:

--1, first paragraph: "...derive IPv6 addresses out of that prefix."
s/out of/from
Please expand "DS-Lite" on first mention in the body (independently from the expansion in the abstract.)

-- 2, first paragraph: "...hosts serviced by a B4 element are overlapping across multiple CPEs..."
s/are overlapping/overlap
2015-08-19
09 Ben Campbell [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded for Ben Campbell
2015-08-19
09 Alia Atlas [Ballot Position Update] Position for Alia Atlas has been changed to No Record from No Objection
2015-08-19
09 Alia Atlas [Ballot comment]
Agree with Alvaro and Barry on concerns.
2015-08-19
09 Alia Atlas Ballot comment text updated for Alia Atlas
2015-08-19
09 Barry Leiba
[Ballot comment]
I have no issue with this document itself, but I have a process concern that right on the edge of a DISCUSS.  It's …
[Ballot comment]
I have no issue with this document itself, but I have a process concern that right on the edge of a DISCUSS.  It's very much related to Álvaro's comment, and it's a meta-issue for IESG discussion:

It bothers me more than a little that we're not bothering with an external (unbiased) document shepherd here.  While that is the prerogative of the responsible AD, it's disturbing because of some omissions in the shepherd writeup.  For one, the "working group summary" and "document quality" sections are meant to tell us about the discussion that went on with respect to the document (even if it wasn't in a working group), and there's nothing there.  The response to question 9 is particularly worrisome; the question asks how solid the consensus is of the interested community, and the response is simply that the question isn't applicable because there's no working group.  Yet there is still an interested community, the document is aiming at BCP, and I expect some assurance that there *is* solid consensus here.  I get nothing.

When I search the mailing list archives, I see almost no discussion of the document.  Other than from the authors, the only comments I see are from Tiru Reddy, and there's not very much there.  And then we have the Gen-ART and SecDir reviews during last call.  What leads us to believe, in good conscience, that there really is IETF consensus here?  Was there substantive review and discussion that I'm not seeing?  If so, where?
2015-08-19
09 Barry Leiba [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Barry Leiba
2015-08-19
09 Alvaro Retana
[Ballot comment]
I am not opposed to the publication of this document.  It is well written and clear.

I do have one point that I …
[Ballot comment]
I am not opposed to the publication of this document.  It is well written and clear.

I do have one point that I want to discuss (lower case)..maybe mostly for my own education.

The intended status of this document is BCP.  I’m wondering, why isn’t it a WG document?  It seems to me that the softwire charter includes this content ("DS-Lite…operational specification”), but I couldn’t find anything in the archives about this decision.  In fact, I found little discussion from the WG on the document, and nothing related to adoption (but I may have missed it).

"BCPs are meant to express community consensus” [rfc2026], but there’s very little (if any) community discussion.

I don’t think there’s any reason why this document can’t be AD-sponsored, which is why this comment is not a DISCUSS.  But it just seems odd to me that we’re publishing a BCP with almost no discussion/deliberation (that I can find).
2015-08-19
09 Alvaro Retana [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Alvaro Retana
2015-08-19
09 Alia Atlas [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Alia Atlas
2015-08-19
09 Spencer Dawkins
[Ballot comment]
I had the same question Alissa had, about stable addresses. Thanks for engaging with her - that conversation seems to be going the …
[Ballot comment]
I had the same question Alissa had, about stable addresses. Thanks for engaging with her - that conversation seems to be going the right direction.
2015-08-19
09 Spencer Dawkins [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Spencer Dawkins
2015-08-19
09 Deborah Brungard [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Deborah Brungard
2015-08-18
09 Alissa Cooper
[Ballot comment]
How was the 56-bit default chosen?

Section 6 says "This document does not nullify the privacy effects that may motivate the use of …
[Ballot comment]
How was the 56-bit default chosen?

Section 6 says "This document does not nullify the privacy effects that may motivate the use of non-stable IPv6 prefixes." It does incentivize the use of stable prefixes though, right? Perhaps the quoted words were carefully chosen to elide that, but it seems worth noting in the same paragraph somewhere. Use of RFC 7217 or RFC 4941 doesn't have the same impact if your prefix never changes.
2015-08-18
09 Alissa Cooper [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Alissa Cooper
2015-08-17
09 (System) IANA Review state changed to IANA OK - No Actions Needed from Version Changed - Review Needed
2015-08-17
09 Terry Manderson IESG state changed to IESG Evaluation from Waiting for AD Go-Ahead
2015-08-17
09 Terry Manderson Ballot has been issued
2015-08-17
09 Terry Manderson [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Terry Manderson
2015-08-17
09 Terry Manderson Created "Approve" ballot
2015-08-13
09 Jean Mahoney Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Tom Taylor
2015-08-13
09 Jean Mahoney Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Tom Taylor
2015-08-13
09 Tero Kivinen Request for Last Call review by SECDIR Completed: Ready. Reviewer: Dan Harkins.
2015-08-11
09 Mohamed Boucadair New version available: draft-vinapamula-softwire-dslite-prefix-binding-09.txt
2015-08-05
08 Mohamed Boucadair IANA Review state changed to Version Changed - Review Needed from IANA OK - No Actions Needed
2015-08-05
08 Mohamed Boucadair New version available: draft-vinapamula-softwire-dslite-prefix-binding-08.txt
2015-08-05
07 (System) IESG state changed to Waiting for AD Go-Ahead from In Last Call
2015-07-20
07 (System) IANA Review state changed to IANA OK - No Actions Needed from IANA - Review Needed
2015-07-20
07 Amanda Baber
(Via drafts-lastcall@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

IANA has reviewed draft-vinapamula-softwire-dslite-prefix-binding-07, which is currently in Last Call, and has the following comments:

We understand that this …
(Via drafts-lastcall@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

IANA has reviewed draft-vinapamula-softwire-dslite-prefix-binding-07, which is currently in Last Call, and has the following comments:

We understand that this document doesn't require any IANA actions.

While it's often helpful for a document's IANA Considerations section to remain in place upon publication even if there are no actions, if the authors strongly prefer to remove it, IANA does not object.

If this assessment is not accurate, please respond as soon as possible.
2015-07-13
07 Gunter Van de Velde Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR is assigned to Suzanne Woolf
2015-07-13
07 Gunter Van de Velde Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR is assigned to Suzanne Woolf
2015-07-09
07 Jean Mahoney Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Tom Taylor
2015-07-09
07 Jean Mahoney Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Tom Taylor
2015-07-09
07 Amy Vezza Telechat date has been changed to 2015-08-20 from 2015-08-19
2015-07-08
07 Tero Kivinen Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Dan Harkins
2015-07-08
07 Tero Kivinen Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Dan Harkins
2015-07-08
07 Amy Vezza IANA Review state changed to IANA - Review Needed
2015-07-08
07 Amy Vezza
The following Last Call announcement was sent out:

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org
Sender:
Subject: Last Call:  (Recommendations for Prefix Binding in the …
The following Last Call announcement was sent out:

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org
Sender:
Subject: Last Call:  (Recommendations for Prefix Binding in the Softwire DS-Lite Context) to Best Current Practice


The IESG has received a request from an individual submitter to consider
the following document:
- 'Recommendations for Prefix Binding in the Softwire DS-Lite Context'
  as Best
Current Practice

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
ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2015-08-05. 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


  This document discusses issues induced by the change of the Dual-
  Stack Lite (DS-Lite) Basic Bridging BroadBand (B4) IPv6 address and
  sketches a set of recommendations to solve those issues.




The file can be obtained via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-vinapamula-softwire-dslite-prefix-binding/

IESG discussion can be tracked via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-vinapamula-softwire-dslite-prefix-binding/ballot/


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


2015-07-08
07 Amy Vezza IESG state changed to In Last Call from Last Call Requested
2015-07-08
07 Terry Manderson Telechat date has been changed to 2015-08-19 from 2015-08-05
2015-07-08
07 Terry Manderson Last call was requested
2015-07-08
07 Terry Manderson Ballot approval text was generated
2015-07-08
07 Terry Manderson IESG state changed to Last Call Requested from Publication Requested
2015-07-08
07 Terry Manderson Last call announcement was generated
2015-07-07
07 Terry Manderson Placed on agenda for telechat - 2015-08-05
2015-07-07
07 Terry Manderson IESG process started in state Publication Requested
2015-07-07
07 Terry Manderson IETF WG state changed to Submitted to IESG for Publication
2015-07-07
07 Terry Manderson Ballot writeup was changed
2015-07-07
07 Terry Manderson additional INT area review performed by "Jean-Michel Combes"
2015-07-02
07 Terry Manderson INT area directorate review was performed by Ralf Weber the authors worked through issues raised and posted a new version.
2015-07-01
07 Mohamed Boucadair New version available: draft-vinapamula-softwire-dslite-prefix-binding-07.txt
2015-06-29
06 Mohamed Boucadair New version available: draft-vinapamula-softwire-dslite-prefix-binding-06.txt
2015-06-23
05 Terry Manderson Ballot writeup was generated
2015-06-23
05 Terry Manderson
2015-06-23
05 Terry Manderson Changed document writeup
2015-06-23
05 Terry Manderson
Notification list changed to mohamed.boucadair@orange.com, sureshk@juniper.net, "Suresh Krishnan" <suresh.krishnan@ericsson.com>, "Mohamed Boucadair" <mohamed.boucadair@orange.com> from mohamed.boucadair@orange.com, sureshk@juniper.net, "Suresh Krishnan" …
2015-06-23
05 Terry Manderson Document shepherd changed to Mohamed Boucadair
2015-06-21
05 Terry Manderson
As an AD sponsored document I requested multiple reviews in addition to the Internet Area Directorate review.

The non-Directorate reviews were performed by:

Qi Sun …
As an AD sponsored document I requested multiple reviews in addition to the Internet Area Directorate review.

The non-Directorate reviews were performed by:

Qi Sun
JACQUENET Christian IMT/OLN

These reviews resulted in -05
2015-06-19
05 Mohamed Boucadair New version available: draft-vinapamula-softwire-dslite-prefix-binding-05.txt
2015-04-27
04 Terry Manderson Shepherding AD changed to Terry Manderson
2015-04-23
04 Mohamed Boucadair New version available: draft-vinapamula-softwire-dslite-prefix-binding-04.txt
2015-01-14
03 Ted Lemon Document shepherd changed to (None)
2015-01-14
03 Ted Lemon Notification list changed to mohamed.boucadair@orange.com, sureshk@juniper.net, draft-vinapamula-softwire-dslite-prefix-binding.all@tools.ietf.org, "Suresh Krishnan" <suresh.krishnan@ericsson.com> from mohamed.boucadair@orange.com, sureshk@juniper.net, draft-vinapamula-softwire-dslite-prefix-binding.all@tools.ietf.org
2015-01-14
03 Ted Lemon Document shepherd changed to Suresh Krishnan
2015-01-14
03 Ted Lemon Notification list changed to mohamed.boucadair@orange.com, sureshk@juniper.net, draft-vinapamula-softwire-dslite-prefix-binding.all@tools.ietf.org
2015-01-14
03 Ted Lemon Shepherding AD changed to Ted Lemon
2015-01-14
03 Ted Lemon Intended Status changed to Best Current Practice from None
2015-01-14
03 Ted Lemon Stream changed to IETF from None
2014-10-27
03 Mohamed Boucadair New version available: draft-vinapamula-softwire-dslite-prefix-binding-03.txt
2014-05-06
02 Suresh Vinapamula New version available: draft-vinapamula-softwire-dslite-prefix-binding-02.txt
2014-01-27
01 Suresh Vinapamula New version available: draft-vinapamula-softwire-dslite-prefix-binding-01.txt
2013-07-29
00 Suresh Vinapamula New version available: draft-vinapamula-softwire-dslite-prefix-binding-00.txt