[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

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.

(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.