IPv4 Address Blocks Reserved for Documentation
RFC 5737

IANA comments:

Upon approval of this document, IANA will complete the following
action in the "IANA IPv4 Address Space Registry" registry located at
http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv4-address-space/ipv4-address-space.xml

A note will be added to 192/8, 198/8 and 203/8 assignments. This note
will show that 192.0.2.0/24 (TEST-NET-1), 198.51.100.0/24 (TEST-NET-2)
and 203.0.113.0/24 (TEST-NET-3) are provided for use in documentation
[RFC-iana-ipv4-examples-01].

  (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?

The Document Shepherd is Russ Housley. He has reviewed the document and
believes it is ready for forwarding to the IESG for publication.

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

Yes, the document has had adequate review.

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

No.

  (1.e)  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?

The document is definitely desired.  The use of designated address ranges
for documentation and examples reduces the likelihood of conflicts and
confusion arising from the use of addresses assigned for some other
purpose.

  (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].

Yes.

  (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 suggested a reasonable name for the new registry?  See
      [I-D.narten-iana-considerations-rfc2434bis].  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?

Yes.  It's all about IANA considerations and they are appropriately
addressed.

  (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?

No such section requires checking.

  (1.k)  The IESG approval announcement includes a Document
      Announcement Write-Up.  Please provide such a Document
      Announcement Writeup?  Recent examples can be found in the
      "Action" announcements for approved documents.  The approval
      announcement contains the following sections:

The IESG has no problem with the publication of "IPv4 Address Blocks
Reserved for Documentation" (draft-iana-ipv4-examples-01) as an
Informational RFC.

This document is an Individual Submission by Jari Arkko, Michelle Cotton
and Leo Vegoda. The IESG contact person us Russ Housley.

      Technical Summary

        This is a direction to IANA concerning the reservation of
        three address blocks for use in documentation only.

      Working Group Summary

        As an Individual Submission no IETF Working Group was involved
        in the preparation of this document.

      Document Quality

        This document was reviewed by Russ Housley.

    Personnel

        Who is the Document Shepherd for this document?
        Russ Housley (housley@vigilsec.com)

        Who is the Responsible Area Director?
        Russ Housley (housley@vigilsec.com)