Reserved IPv6 Interface Identifiers
RFC 5453
Revision differences
Document history
Date | Rev. | By | Action |
---|---|---|---|
2019-01-03
|
03 | (System) | Received changes through RFC Editor sync (added Errata tag) |
2015-10-14
|
03 | (System) | Notify list changed from 6man-chairs@ietf.org, draft-ietf-6man-reserved-iids@ietf.org to (None) |
2012-08-22
|
03 | (System) | post-migration administrative database adjustment to the No Objection position for Pasi Eronen |
2012-08-22
|
03 | (System) | post-migration administrative database adjustment to the Yes position for Jari Arkko |
2012-08-22
|
03 | (System) | post-migration administrative database adjustment to the No Objection position for Tim Polk |
2009-02-11
|
03 | Amy Vezza | State Changes to RFC Published from RFC Ed Queue by Amy Vezza |
2009-02-11
|
03 | Amy Vezza | [Note]: 'RFC 5453' added by Amy Vezza |
2009-02-10
|
03 | (System) | RFC published |
2009-02-06
|
03 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to RFC-Ed-Ack from Waiting on RFC Editor |
2009-02-06
|
03 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to Waiting on RFC Editor from In Progress |
2009-02-06
|
03 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to In Progress from Waiting on Authors |
2009-02-05
|
03 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to Waiting on Authors from In Progress |
2009-01-21
|
03 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to In Progress from Waiting on Authors |
2008-12-24
|
03 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to Waiting on Authors from In Progress |
2008-12-12
|
03 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to In Progress |
2008-12-12
|
03 | Cindy Morgan | State Changes to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent by Cindy Morgan |
2008-12-12
|
03 | Amy Vezza | IESG state changed to Approved-announcement sent |
2008-12-12
|
03 | Amy Vezza | IESG has approved the document |
2008-12-12
|
03 | Amy Vezza | Closed "Approve" ballot |
2008-12-11
|
03 | Jari Arkko | State Changes to Approved-announcement to be sent from IESG Evaluation::External Party by Jari Arkko |
2008-12-11
|
03 | Jari Arkko | authors OK the suggested change. |
2008-12-11
|
03 | Jari Arkko | State Changes to IESG Evaluation::External Party from IESG Evaluation::AD Followup by Jari Arkko |
2008-12-09
|
03 | Jari Arkko | [Ballot Position Update] Position for Jari Arkko has been changed to Yes from Discuss by Jari Arkko |
2008-12-06
|
03 | Samuel Weiler | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR Completed. Reviewer: Derek Atkins. |
2008-12-05
|
03 | (System) | Removed from agenda for telechat - 2008-12-04 |
2008-12-04
|
03 | Amy Vezza | State Changes to IESG Evaluation::AD Followup from IESG Evaluation by Amy Vezza |
2008-12-04
|
03 | Jari Arkko | [Ballot discuss] Need to finish the discussion between the chairs and the author. Also, other ADs asked to keep Appendix A and add informational references … [Ballot discuss] Need to finish the discussion between the chairs and the author. Also, other ADs asked to keep Appendix A and add informational references to the other specs. |
2008-12-04
|
03 | Jari Arkko | [Ballot Position Update] Position for Jari Arkko has been changed to Discuss from Yes by Jari Arkko |
2008-12-04
|
03 | David Ward | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by David Ward |
2008-12-04
|
03 | Lisa Dusseault | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Lisa Dusseault |
2008-12-04
|
03 | Ross Callon | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Ross Callon |
2008-12-04
|
03 | Magnus Westerlund | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Magnus Westerlund |
2008-12-04
|
03 | Ron Bonica | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Ron Bonica |
2008-12-04
|
03 | Dan Romascanu | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Dan Romascanu |
2008-12-04
|
03 | Tim Polk | [Ballot Position Update] Position for Tim Polk has been changed to No Objection from Undefined by Tim Polk |
2008-12-04
|
03 | Tim Polk | [Ballot Position Update] Position for Tim Polk has been changed to Undefined from Discuss by Tim Polk |
2008-12-04
|
03 | Jon Peterson | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Jon Peterson |
2008-12-04
|
03 | Pasi Eronen | [Ballot Position Update] Position for Pasi Eronen has been changed to No Objection from Discuss by Pasi Eronen |
2008-12-03
|
03 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-6man-reserved-iids-03.txt |
2008-12-03
|
03 | Mark Townsley | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Mark Townsley |
2008-12-02
|
03 | Chris Newman | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Chris Newman |
2008-12-02
|
02 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-6man-reserved-iids-02.txt |
2008-12-02
|
03 | Russ Housley | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Russ Housley |
2008-12-02
|
03 | Tim Polk | [Ballot discuss] Would it be reasonable to reserve some range of Interface Identifiers for future assignment? This would have no immediate impact, but future implementations … [Ballot discuss] Would it be reasonable to reserve some range of Interface Identifiers for future assignment? This would have no immediate impact, but future implementations could include a measure of future proofing by avoiding the reserved range during autoconfiguration. |
2008-12-02
|
03 | Tim Polk | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded by Tim Polk |
2008-12-01
|
03 | Pasi Eronen | [Ballot discuss] Since IANA already has a registry for subnet anycast addresses (RFC 2526), the table in Section 4 should probably show just … [Ballot discuss] Since IANA already has a registry for subnet anycast addresses (RFC 2526), the table in Section 4 should probably show just "fdff:ffff:ffff:ff80-fdff:ffff:ffff:ffff Reserved Subnet Anycast [RFC2526]" so that when new addresses are allocated from this range, we don't have to update two registries. The document title/abstract and name of the IANA registry should clarify that this applies only to IIDs that are in the Modified EUI-64 format, not all IIDs. |
2008-12-01
|
03 | Pasi Eronen | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded by Pasi Eronen |
2008-12-01
|
03 | Cullen Jennings | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Cullen Jennings |
2008-12-01
|
03 | Lars Eggert | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Lars Eggert |
2008-12-01
|
03 | Lars Eggert | [Ballot comment] This document appears to only create an IANA registry for reserved interface IDs, but doesn't actually update any of the specifications that generate … [Ballot comment] This document appears to only create an IANA registry for reserved interface IDs, but doesn't actually update any of the specifications that generate such IDs to say that the values in the IANA registry must be avoided. Did I get this right? If yes, which other document does that? A registry without a described use is relatively pointless. |
2008-11-25
|
03 | Jari Arkko | State Changes to IESG Evaluation from Waiting for AD Go-Ahead by Jari Arkko |
2008-11-24
|
03 | Amanda Baber | IANA comments: Upon approval of this document, the IANA will create the registry "Reserved IPv6 Interface Identifiers" located at http://www.iana.org/assignments/TBD Assignments from this registry are … IANA comments: Upon approval of this document, the IANA will create the registry "Reserved IPv6 Interface Identifiers" located at http://www.iana.org/assignments/TBD Assignments from this registry are discouraged but in exceptional circumstances are to be made through Standards Action [RFC5226]. Assignments consist of a single interface identifier or a range of interface identifiers. Initial contents of this registry will be: +-----------------------------------------+-------------------------+------------+ | Interface Identifier Range | Description | Reference | +-----------------------------------------+-------------------------+------------+ | 0000:0000:0000:0000-0000:0000:0000:0000 | Subnet-Router Anycast | [RFC4291] | | | | | | fdff:ffff:ffff:ff80-fdff:ffff:ffff:fffd | Reserved Subnet Anycast | [RFC2526] | | | | | | fdff:ffff:ffff:fffe-fdff:ffff:ffff:fffe | MobileIPv6 Home Agents | [RFC2526] | | | Anycast | | | | | | | fdff:ffff:ffff:ffff-fdff:ffff:ffff:ffff | Reserved Subnet Anycast | [RFC2526] | +-----------------------------------------+-------------------------+------------+ We understand the above to be the only IANA Action for this document. |
2008-11-20
|
03 | (System) | State has been changed to Waiting for AD Go-Ahead from In Last Call by system |
2008-11-11
|
03 | Samuel Weiler | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Derek Atkins |
2008-11-11
|
03 | Samuel Weiler | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Derek Atkins |
2008-11-06
|
03 | Amy Vezza | Last call sent |
2008-11-06
|
03 | Amy Vezza | State Changes to In Last Call from Last Call Requested by Amy Vezza |
2008-11-05
|
03 | Jari Arkko | Placed on agenda for telechat - 2008-12-04 by Jari Arkko |
2008-11-05
|
03 | Jari Arkko | Put on the agenda, assuming no significant LC discussion occurs. |
2008-11-05
|
03 | Jari Arkko | Last Call was requested by Jari Arkko |
2008-11-05
|
03 | Jari Arkko | State Changes to Last Call Requested from Publication Requested by Jari Arkko |
2008-11-05
|
03 | Jari Arkko | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Jari Arkko |
2008-11-05
|
03 | Jari Arkko | Ballot has been issued by Jari Arkko |
2008-11-05
|
03 | Jari Arkko | Created "Approve" ballot |
2008-11-05
|
03 | (System) | Ballot writeup text was added |
2008-11-05
|
03 | (System) | Last call text was added |
2008-11-05
|
03 | (System) | Ballot approval text was added |
2008-11-05
|
03 | Cindy Morgan | (1.a) Who is the Document Shepherd for this document? Has the Document Shepherd personally reviewed this version of the document and, in particular, does he … (1.a) Who is the Document Shepherd for this document? 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? Brian Haberman is the document shepherd. He has reviewed this version of the document and believes it is ready for the IESG. (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? Yes, the document has received adequate review and the document shepherd has no concerns with those reviews. (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? No. (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. No. (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 document shepherd believes that the WG as a whole supports this document. (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. (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 split into normative and informative dependencies. No normative references are outstanding. (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 [RFC5226]. 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? The IANA Considerations section is consistent and clear. (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? N/A. (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 Interface Identifiers in IPv6 unicast addresses are used to identify interfaces on a link. They are required to be unique within a subnet. Several RFCs have specified interface identifiers or identifier ranges that have a special meaning attached to them. An IPv6 node autoconfiguring an interface identifier in these ranges will encounter unexpected consequences. Since there is no centralized repository for such reserved identifiers, this document aims to create one. Working Group Summary The 6MAN working group has done extensive reviews of this document and it reflects the consensus of the working group. Document Quality This document has been reviewed by numerous members of the ipv6@ietf.org mailing list and by the 6MAN WG chairs. |
2008-11-05
|
03 | Cindy Morgan | Draft Added by Cindy Morgan in state Publication Requested |
2008-07-14
|
01 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-6man-reserved-iids-01.txt |
2008-02-11
|
00 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-6man-reserved-iids-00.txt |