Skip to main content

Requirements for Address Selection Mechanisms
RFC 5221

Revision differences

Document history

Date Rev. By Action
2015-10-14
07 (System) Notify list changed from v6ops-chairs@ietf.org, draft-ietf-v6ops-addr-select-req@ietf.org to (None)
2012-08-22
07 (System) post-migration administrative database adjustment to the No Objection position for Cullen Jennings
2012-08-22
07 (System) post-migration administrative database adjustment to the Yes position for Jari Arkko
2012-08-22
07 (System) post-migration administrative database adjustment to the No Objection position for Tim Polk
2012-08-22
07 (System) post-migration administrative database adjustment to the No Objection position for Russ Housley
2008-07-15
07 Cindy Morgan State Changes to RFC Published from RFC Ed Queue by Cindy Morgan
2008-07-15
07 Cindy Morgan [Note]: 'RFC 5221' added by Cindy Morgan
2008-07-15
07 (System) RFC published
2008-05-29
07 Cindy Morgan State Changes to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent by Cindy Morgan
2008-05-29
07 (System) IANA Action state changed to No IC from In Progress
2008-05-29
07 (System) IANA Action state changed to In Progress
2008-05-29
07 Cindy Morgan IESG state changed to Approved-announcement sent
2008-05-29
07 Cindy Morgan IESG has approved the document
2008-05-29
07 Cindy Morgan Closed "Approve" ballot
2008-05-29
07 Ron Bonica State Changes to Approved-announcement to be sent from IESG Evaluation::AD Followup by Ron Bonica
2008-05-12
07 Tim Polk [Ballot Position Update] Position for Tim Polk has been changed to No Objection from Undefined by Tim Polk
2008-05-12
07 Tim Polk [Ballot Position Update] Position for Tim Polk has been changed to Undefined from Discuss by Tim Polk
2008-05-11
07 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-v6ops-addr-select-req-07.txt
2008-04-27
06 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-v6ops-addr-select-req-06.txt
2008-03-20
07 Jari Arkko [Ballot Position Update] Position for Jari Arkko has been changed to Yes from Discuss by Jari Arkko
2008-03-17
07 Cullen Jennings [Ballot Position Update] Position for Cullen Jennings has been changed to No Objection from Undefined by Cullen Jennings
2008-03-17
07 Cullen Jennings [Ballot Position Update] Position for Cullen Jennings has been changed to Undefined from Discuss by Cullen Jennings
2008-03-11
07 (System) Sub state has been changed to AD Follow up from New Id Needed
2008-03-11
05 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-v6ops-addr-select-req-05.txt
2008-02-18
07 Russ Housley [Ballot Position Update] Position for Russ Housley has been changed to No Objection from Discuss by Russ Housley
2008-02-09
07 Cullen Jennings
[Ballot discuss]
I may be reading too much into the requirements in section 2.4 and 2.7. If we have consensus that this is needed, the …
[Ballot discuss]
I may be reading too much into the requirements in section 2.4 and 2.7. If we have consensus that this is needed, the document needs to say what the trust relationship is between the Central Controller and the users hosts. Would this mean that the the local coffee shop WIFI could change the policies on my computer about route selection? This seems to have large security implications as it could redirect traffic out of my VPN and into the public network. Can you clarify the intentions of this requirement and expand the requirement to include what central control entities are authorized to do and how conflicts are resolved.

The abstract mentions "policy table distribution" and ICMP error-based" techniques but I don't seem to find these in the document.
2008-02-08
07 (System) Removed from agenda for telechat - 2008-02-07
2008-02-07
07 Amy Vezza State Changes to IESG Evaluation::Revised ID Needed from IESG Evaluation by Amy Vezza
2008-02-07
07 (System) [Ballot Position Update] New position, discuss, has been recorded for Cullen Jennings by IESG Secretary
2008-02-07
07 (System) [Ballot Position Update] New position, yes, has been recorded for Ron Bonica by IESG Secretary
2008-02-07
07 Ross Callon [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Ross Callon
2008-02-07
07 Lisa Dusseault [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Lisa Dusseault
2008-02-07
07 Jari Arkko
[Ballot discuss]
I want to talk about this on the call. The documents were not last called, and I would like to understand who reviewed …
[Ballot discuss]
I want to talk about this on the call. The documents were not last called, and I would like to understand who reviewed this in v6ops so that I can assure myself that the IPv6 experts are satisfied with this.

Bob Hinden's review:


Section 1 "Introduction" has some of the terminology problems I found in the "problem statement" document that would be nice to fix.  The rest seems to be fine.
2008-02-07
07 Dan Romascanu [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Dan Romascanu
2008-02-07
07 Jari Arkko
[Ballot discuss]
I want to talk about this on the call. The documents were not last called, and I would like to understand who reviewed …
[Ballot discuss]
I want to talk about this on the call. The documents were not last called, and I would like to understand who reviewed this in v6ops so that I can assure myself that the IPv6 experts are satisfied with this.
2008-02-07
07 Jari Arkko [Ballot Position Update] Position for Jari Arkko has been changed to Discuss from Yes by Jari Arkko
2008-02-07
07 Jari Arkko
[Ballot discuss]
I want to talk about this on the call. The documents were not last called, and I would like to understand who reviewed …
[Ballot discuss]
I want to talk about this on the call. The documents were not last called, and I would like to understand who reviewed this in v6ops so that I can assure myself that the IPv6 experts are satisfied with this.
2008-02-07
07 Jari Arkko
[Ballot discuss]
I want to talk about this on the call. The documents were not last called, and I would like to understand who reviewed …
[Ballot discuss]
I want to talk about this on the call. The documents were not last called, and I would like to understand who reviewed this in v6ops so that I can assure myself that the IPv6 experts are satisfied with this.
2008-02-07
07 Jari Arkko [Ballot Position Update] Position for Jari Arkko has been changed to Yes from Discuss by Jari Arkko
2008-02-07
07 Jari Arkko
[Ballot discuss]
I want to talk about this on the call. The documents were not last called, and I would like to understand who reviewed …
[Ballot discuss]
I want to talk about this on the call. The documents were not last called, and I would like to understand who reviewed this in v6ops so that I can assure myself that the IPv6 experts are satisfied with this.
2008-02-07
07 Jari Arkko [Ballot Position Update] Position for Jari Arkko has been changed to Discuss from Yes by Jari Arkko
2008-02-07
07 Jari Arkko [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded by Jari Arkko
2008-02-07
07 Lars Eggert [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Lars Eggert
2008-02-06
07 Chris Newman [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Chris Newman
2008-02-06
07 Russ Housley
[Ballot discuss]
The comments on the security considerations section that were part of
  the SecDir Review by Julien Laganier were not answered.  I expect …
[Ballot discuss]
The comments on the security considerations section that were part of
  the SecDir Review by Julien Laganier were not answered.  I expect to
  see a public response, especially if they do not agree with the
  comments.
2008-02-06
07 Russ Housley [Ballot Position Update] Position for Russ Housley has been changed to Discuss from Undefined by Russ Housley
2008-02-05
07 Tim Polk
[Ballot discuss]
I read this document immediately after v6ops-addr-select-ps and was a little suprised
that the documents are not more closely related.  While some of …
[Ballot discuss]
I read this document immediately after v6ops-addr-select-ps and was a little suprised
that the documents are not more closely related.  While some of the requirements are
out of scope for the problem statement (e.g., central control or compatibility with
RFC 3493), there are others that seem to merit inclusion in both documents but appear
in only one.  I would also like to understand the implications for backward compatibilty.

Specific comments:

I would think that the first requirement is to select appropriate source and destination
addresses in the various scenarios found in v6ops-addr-select-ps, as well as those cases
where RFC 3484 provides the appropriate result.  Perhaps that was the intent of section
2.1, Effectiveness, but that text seems focused on justifying changes to the RFC 3484
algorithm. 

Does Section 2.6, Mulitple Interface, refer to situations where a system has multiple physical
interfaces, such as a wireless and a wired network interface?  I can see that this situation
needs to be supported, but there was no indication in the problem statement that the RFC
3484
algorithm did not handle this scenario.

It is clear that implementations of RFC 3484 and any new address selction algorithms will
coexist on the Internet for years.  Are there any interoperability requirements for the new
algorithm?  It would seem that the new algorithm should probably have the same results
in any case where the 3484 algorithm would have succeeded.  (Perhaps this is an
unecessary requirement - it just sounds reasonable to me based on a superficial reading!)
2008-02-05
07 Tim Polk [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded by Tim Polk
2008-02-04
07 (System) Ballot has been issued
2008-02-04
07 Russ Housley [Ballot Position Update] Position for Russ Housley has been changed to Undefined from Yes by Russ Housley
2008-02-04
07 Russ Housley Created "Approve" ballot
2008-02-04
07 (System) Ballot writeup text was added
2008-02-04
07 (System) Last call text was added
2008-02-04
07 (System) Ballot approval text was added
2008-01-29
07 Ron Bonica Placed on agenda for telechat - 2008-02-07 by Ron Bonica
2008-01-29
07 Ron Bonica State Changes to IESG Evaluation from AD Evaluation::AD Followup by Ron Bonica
2007-12-28
07 Ron Bonica State Changes to AD Evaluation::AD Followup from Publication Requested by Ron Bonica
2007-12-28
07 Ron Bonica
This draft is well written and ready to go to the IESG for review. I would like to send it together with draft-ietf-v6ops-addr-select-ps. As soon …
This draft is well written and ready to go to the IESG for review. I would like to send it together with draft-ietf-v6ops-addr-select-ps. As soon as that one is ready I will send them both.
2007-12-17
07 Dinara Suleymanova
PROTO Write-up

> (1.a) Who is the Document Shepherd for this document?

Fred Baker

> Has the Document Shepherd personally reviewed this version of the …
PROTO Write-up

> (1.a) Who is the Document Shepherd for this document?

Fred Baker

> Has the Document Shepherd personally reviewed this version of the
> document and, in particular, does he or she believe this version is
> ready for forwarding to the IESG for publication?

Yes, and yes.

> (1.b) Has the document had adequate review both from key WG members
> and from key non-WG members? Does the Document Shepherd have any
> concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been
> performed?

The document process with this and the associated requirements
document has been rather complex. RFC 3484 is implemented in a
variety of OS's, but it has been too difficult to use operationally
for several reasons. This is the reason that the discussion has started.

Yes, there has been a great deal of working group discussion and
review, most of it face to face or offline.

> (1.c) Does the Document Shepherd have concerns that the document
> needs more review from a particular or broader perspective, e.g.,
> security, operational complexity, someone familiar with AAA,
> internationalization or XML?

It is operational people who are writing and discussing the document,
so I don't believe that further operational review is required. I
also believe that it doesn't bring up issues of the other types
mentioned here.

> (1.d) Does the Document Shepherd have any specific concerns or
> issues 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. Has an IPR
> disclosure related to this document been filed? If so, please
> include a reference to the disclosure and summarize the WG
> discussion and conclusion on this issue.

RFC 3484 has been difficult to use, and there is therefore a solution
needed. The development of the solution is expected to occur in 6man.
A problem statement and a requirements document are appropriate to
guide that discussion.

> (1.e) 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?

The working group seems to have a consensus around the problem
statement and the requirements. The solution is not agreed to yet.

> (1.f) 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 entered
> into the ID Tracker.)

no.

> (1.g) Has the Document Shepherd personally verified that the
> document satisfies all ID nits? (See http://www.ietf.org/ID-
> Checklist.html and http://tools.ietf.org/tools/idnits/).
> Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be thorough.
> Has the document met all formal review criteria it needs to, such
> as the MIB Doctor, media type and URI type reviews?

Yes, I have verified this.

> (1.h) Has the document split its references into normative and
> informative? 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 strategy for their
> completion? Are there normative references that are downward
> references, as described in [RFC3967]? If so, list these downward
> references to support the Area Director in the Last Call procedure
> for them [RFC3967].

the references are indeed split into normative and informational
references. there is no down-rev reference.

> (1.i) Has the Document Shepherd verified that the document IANA
> consideration section exists and is consistent with the body of the
> document? If the document specifies protocol extensions, are
> reservations requested in appropriate IANA registries? Are the IANA
> registries clearly identified? If the document creates a new
> registry, does it define the proposed initial contents of the
> registry and an allocation procedure for future registrations? Does
> it suggest a reasonable name for the new registry? See [RFC2434].
> If the document describes an Expert Review process has Shepherd
> conferred with the Responsible Area Director so that the IESG can
> appoint the needed Expert during the IESG Evaluation?

This document has no actions for IANA, and says as much.

> (1.j) Has the Document Shepherd verified that sections of the
> document that are written in a formal language, such as XML code,
> BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc., validate correctly in an
> automated checker?

there are no such sections.

> (1.k) 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: Relevant content can frequently be found in the
> abstract and/or introduction of the document. If not, this may be
> an indication that there are deficiencies in the abstract or
> introduction.

One physical network can have multiple logical networks. In that
case, an end-host has multiple IP addresses. (e.g., in the IPv4-IPv6
dual-stack environment, in a site that uses both ULA [RFC4193] and
global scope addresses or in a site connected to multiple upstream
IPv6 networks) For such a host, RFC 3484 [RFC3484] defines default
address-selection rules for the source and destination addresses.

Today, the RFC 3484 mechanism is widely implemented in major OSs.
However, we and others have found that in many sites the default
address-selection rules are not appropriate for the network
structure. PS [I-D.ietf-v6ops-addr-select-ps] lists problematic
cases that resulted from incorrect address selection.

Though RFC 3484 made the address-selection behavior of a host
configurable, typical users cannot make use of that because of the
complexity of the mechanism and lack of knowledge about their
network
topologies. Therefore, an address-selection autoconfiguration
mechanism is necessary, especially for unmanaged hosts of typical
users.

This document contains requirements for address-selection mechanisms
that enable hosts to perform appropriate address selection
automatically.

> Working Group Summary: Was there anything in WG process that is
> worth noting? For example, was there controversy about particular
> points or were there decisions where the consensus was particularly
> rough?

The problem statement and requirements have been thoroughly discussed
and seem to have a reasonably strong consensus. The proposed solution
is not yet agreed to.

> 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 is not a protocol. It is a requirements statement for an
operational policy procedure. RFC 3484 is implemented in several OS's.


idnits 2.05.02

tmp/draft-ietf-v6ops-addr-select-req-04.txt:
tmp/draft-ietf-v6ops-addr-select-req-04.txt(328): Appendix start:
Appendix A. Appendix. Revision History.
Appendix start: Appendix A. Appendix. Revision History

Checking boilerplate required by RFC 3978 and 3979, updated by RFC
4748
:

- ------------------------------------------------------------------------
- ----

No issues found here.

Checking nits according to http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-
guidelines.txt:

- ------------------------------------------------------------------------
- ----

No issues found here.

Checking nits according to http://www.ietf.org/ID-Checklist.html:

- ------------------------------------------------------------------------
- ----

No issues found here.

Miscellaneous warnings:

- ------------------------------------------------------------------------
- ----

No issues found here.

Checking references for intended status: Informational

- ------------------------------------------------------------------------
- ----

No issues found here.

No nits found.
- ----------------------------------------------------------------------
2007-12-17
07 Dinara Suleymanova Draft Added by Dinara Suleymanova in state Publication Requested
2007-11-08
04 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-v6ops-addr-select-req-04.txt
2007-10-12
03 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-v6ops-addr-select-req-03.txt
2007-07-16
07 Samuel Weiler Request for Early review by SECDIR Completed. Reviewer: Julien Laganier.
2007-07-06
07 Samuel Weiler Request for Early review by SECDIR is assigned to Julien Laganier
2007-07-06
07 Samuel Weiler Request for Early review by SECDIR is assigned to Julien Laganier
2007-05-15
02 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-v6ops-addr-select-req-02.txt
2007-02-21
01 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-v6ops-addr-select-req-01.txt
2006-11-10
00 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-v6ops-addr-select-req-00.txt