Skip to main content

Emerging Service Provider Scenarios for IPv6 Deployment
RFC 6036

Revision differences

Document history

Date Rev. By Action
2015-10-14
00 (System) Notify list changed from v6ops-chairs@ietf.org, draft-ietf-v6ops-isp-scenarios@ietf.org to (None)
2010-10-25
00 Cindy Morgan State changed to RFC Published from RFC Ed Queue by Cindy Morgan
2010-10-25
00 Cindy Morgan [Note]: changed to 'RFC 6036' by Cindy Morgan
2010-10-22
00 (System) RFC published
2010-08-17
00 Amy Vezza State changed to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent by Amy Vezza
2010-08-16
00 (System) IANA Action state changed to No IC from In Progress
2010-08-16
00 (System) IANA Action state changed to In Progress
2010-08-16
00 Cindy Morgan IESG state changed to Approved-announcement sent
2010-08-16
00 Cindy Morgan IESG has approved the document
2010-08-16
00 Cindy Morgan Closed "Approve" ballot
2010-08-16
00 Samuel Weiler Request for Last Call review by SECDIR Completed. Reviewer: Lt. Mundy.
2010-08-13
00 (System) Removed from agenda for telechat - 2010-08-12
2010-08-12
00 Cindy Morgan State Changes to Approved-announcement to be sent from IESG Evaluation by Cindy Morgan
2010-08-12
00 Jari Arkko [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded by Jari Arkko
2010-08-12
00 Tim Polk [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Tim Polk
2010-08-11
00 Sean Turner [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Sean Turner
2010-08-11
00 Peter Saint-Andre [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Peter Saint-Andre
2010-08-05
00 Ron Bonica State Changes to IESG Evaluation from Waiting for AD Go-Ahead by Ron Bonica
2010-08-05
00 Ron Bonica Placed on agenda for telechat - 2010-08-12 by Ron Bonica
2010-08-05
00 Ron Bonica [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Ronald Bonica
2010-08-05
00 Ron Bonica Ballot has been issued by Ron Bonica
2010-08-05
00 Ron Bonica Created "Approve" ballot
2010-08-05
00 (System) State has been changed to Waiting for AD Go-Ahead from In Last Call by system
2010-07-30
00 Samuel Weiler Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Lt. Mundy
2010-07-30
00 Samuel Weiler Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Lt. Mundy
2010-07-26
00 Amanda Baber IANA comments:

We understand that this document does not require any IANA actions.
2010-07-22
00 Cindy Morgan Last call sent
2010-07-22
00 Cindy Morgan State Changes to In Last Call from Last Call Requested by Cindy Morgan
2010-07-21
00 Ron Bonica Last Call was requested by Ron Bonica
2010-07-21
00 (System) Ballot writeup text was added
2010-07-21
00 (System) Last call text was added
2010-07-21
00 (System) Ballot approval text was added
2010-07-21
00 Ron Bonica State Changes to Last Call Requested from Publication Requested by Ron Bonica
2010-07-14
00 Cindy Morgan [Note]: 'Fred Baker (fred@cisco.com) is the document shepherd.' added by Cindy Morgan
2010-07-14
00 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 …
> (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 Fred Baker. Yes, I have reviewed the document, and consider it ready for publication.

> (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?

I believe that it has. It has been discussed in two working group meetings, one before and one after the survey, and has been discussed on the list. General comments have been favorable and have indicated that it had value.

> (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?

For what it claims to be, I believe that it has had adequate review.

> (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.

The one complaint I would have, which its authors raised, is that it would be nice to have had more respondents. It may be of value to repeat the experiment in a year or two and see what changes.

> (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 expressed satisfaction with the 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 the
> Internet-Drafts Checklist
>
> 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].

After a manner of speaking; the references are all informative.

> (1.i) Has the Document Shepherd verified that the document IANA
> consideration section exists and is consistent with the body
> of the document?

The document correctly states that it makes no request of the IANA.

> (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?

I have verified that 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

This document describes practices and plans that are emerging among
Internet Service Providers for the deployment of IPv6 services. They
are based on practical experience so far, as well as current plans
and requirements, reported in a survey of a number of ISPs carried
out in early 2010. The document identifies a number of technology
gaps, but does not make recommendations.

> Working Group Summary

The working group was first presented with the discussion in IETF 76, the survey was carried out, and it was reported on in IETF 77. The working group decided to adopt the report as a working group document at that time. In general, while it would have been nicer to have more respondents, the working group felt that this was a useful exercise and an informative report.

> Document Quality

The document is a report on a survey. The information derived from the survey is reported on factually and in a manner that enables a wide variety of interested parties to glean data from it.
2010-07-14
00 Cindy Morgan Draft Added by Cindy Morgan in state Publication Requested
2010-04-15
00 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-v6ops-isp-scenarios-00.txt