Advisory Guidelines for 6to4 Deployment
RFC 6343
Revision differences
Document history
| Date | Rev. | By | Action |
|---|---|---|---|
|
2015-10-14
|
02 | (System) | Notify list changed from v6ops-chairs@ietf.org, draft-ietf-v6ops-6to4-advisory@ietf.org to (None) |
|
2012-08-22
|
02 | (System) | post-migration administrative database adjustment to the No Objection position for Russ Housley |
|
2011-08-09
|
02 | Cindy Morgan | State changed to RFC Published from RFC Ed Queue. |
|
2011-08-08
|
02 | (System) | RFC published |
|
2011-07-03
|
02 | Cindy Morgan | State changed to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent. |
|
2011-07-01
|
02 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to No IC from In Progress |
|
2011-07-01
|
02 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to In Progress |
|
2011-07-01
|
02 | Amy Vezza | IESG state changed to Approved-announcement sent |
|
2011-07-01
|
02 | Amy Vezza | IESG has approved the document |
|
2011-07-01
|
02 | Amy Vezza | Closed "Approve" ballot |
|
2011-07-01
|
02 | Amy Vezza | Approval announcement text regenerated |
|
2011-07-01
|
02 | Amy Vezza | Ballot writeup text changed |
|
2011-07-01
|
02 | Ron Bonica | State changed to Approved-announcement to be sent from IESG Evaluation::Revised ID Needed. |
|
2011-06-30
|
02 | Russ Housley | [Ballot discuss] Discussion following the Gen-ART Review by Alexey Melnikov on 6-Jun-2011 lead to proposed text changes. I would like to see them … [Ballot discuss] Discussion following the Gen-ART Review by Alexey Melnikov on 6-Jun-2011 lead to proposed text changes. I would like to see them incorporated into the document. I understand the author has done the work and is waiting for word from the Sponsoring AD. |
|
2011-06-30
|
02 | Russ Housley | [Ballot Position Update] Position for Russ Housley has been changed to No Objection from Discuss |
|
2011-06-23
|
02 | Cindy Morgan | Removed from agenda for telechat |
|
2011-06-23
|
02 | Cindy Morgan | State changed to IESG Evaluation::Revised ID Needed from IESG Evaluation. |
|
2011-06-23
|
02 | Amy Vezza | Ballot writeup text changed |
|
2011-06-23
|
02 | Dan Romascanu | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded |
|
2011-06-23
|
02 | Amy Vezza | State changed to IESG Evaluation from Waiting for AD Go-Ahead. |
|
2011-06-23
|
02 | Jari Arkko | [Ballot comment] Thank you for writing this. Some minor comments: Section 5.2 could say something about using routing protocols between the gateway and the two … [Ballot comment] Thank you for writing this. Some minor comments: Section 5.2 could say something about using routing protocols between the gateway and the two routers. Section 7.2 title has a typo. |
|
2011-06-23
|
02 | Jari Arkko | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded |
|
2011-06-23
|
02 | Gonzalo Camarillo | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded |
|
2011-06-22
|
02 | David Harrington | Request for Last Call review by TSVDIR Completed. Reviewer: Dan Wing. |
|
2011-06-22
|
02 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-v6ops-6to4-advisory-02.txt |
|
2011-06-22
|
02 | Ralph Droms | [Ballot comment] Very nice document. Thank you. One small question... After reading this sentence: In practice, there are few if any deployments of … [Ballot comment] Very nice document. Thank you. One small question... After reading this sentence: In practice, there are few if any deployments of Router 6to4 following these recommendations. I wonder if the author has any insight into how many deployments of Router 6to4 are not following the recommendations in RFC 3056? |
|
2011-06-22
|
02 | Ralph Droms | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded |
|
2011-06-22
|
02 | Stewart Bryant | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded |
|
2011-06-22
|
02 | Robert Sparks | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded |
|
2011-06-22
|
02 | Russ Housley | [Ballot discuss] Discussion following the Gen-ART Review by Alexey Melnikov on 6-Jun-2011 lead to proposed text changes. I would like to see them … [Ballot discuss] Discussion following the Gen-ART Review by Alexey Melnikov on 6-Jun-2011 lead to proposed text changes. I would like to see them incorporated into the document. I understand the author has done the work and is waiting for word from the Sponsoring AD. |
|
2011-06-22
|
02 | Russ Housley | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded |
|
2011-06-22
|
02 | Adrian Farrel | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded |
|
2011-06-21
|
02 | Peter Saint-Andre | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded |
|
2011-06-21
|
02 | Pete Resnick | [Ballot comment] I do not object to the publication of this document. However: 1. Though it is only a "informative" reference, I do wonder how … [Ballot comment] I do not object to the publication of this document. However: 1. Though it is only a "informative" reference, I do wonder how dependent this document is on moving 6to4 to Historic in the minds of WG members. Maybe they are completely independent. But it is a concern, especially if the IETF decides to *not* move 6to4 to Historic. 2. The document says: Other advice applies to content providers and implementers, but this document does not discuss aspects that are mainly outside the scope of network operators... I do wonder where that other information is going to be collected together for an overview of dealing with 6to4. |
|
2011-06-21
|
02 | Pete Resnick | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded |
|
2011-06-21
|
02 | Sean Turner | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded |
|
2011-06-21
|
02 | Stephen Farrell | [Ballot comment] Very nicely written document. I see that draft-ietf-v6ops-6to4-to-historic also mentions the 2.0.0.2.ip6.arpa domain, but that's not mentioned at all here. Should it be? |
|
2011-06-21
|
02 | Stephen Farrell | [Ballot comment] Very nicely written document. |
|
2011-06-21
|
02 | Stephen Farrell | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded |
|
2011-06-20
|
02 | David Harrington | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded |
|
2011-06-17
|
02 | Samuel Weiler | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR Completed. Reviewer: Barry Leiba. |
|
2011-06-16
|
02 | Wesley Eddy | [Ballot comment] The document is clear and well-written. Does it make sense at the end of Section 1 to mention that this is not a … [Ballot comment] The document is clear and well-written. Does it make sense at the end of Section 1 to mention that this is not a BCP but only Informational because of the fact that 6to4 is being made Historic in parallel? Does this update 3056/3068, or does that not matter since they're going to be Historic? |
|
2011-06-16
|
02 | Wesley Eddy | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded |
|
2011-06-16
|
02 | Amanda Baber | We understand that this document doesn't require any IANA actions. |
|
2011-06-16
|
02 | (System) | State changed to Waiting for AD Go-Ahead from In Last Call. |
|
2011-06-10
|
02 | David Harrington | Request for Last Call review by TSVDIR is assigned to Dan Wing |
|
2011-06-10
|
02 | David Harrington | Request for Last Call review by TSVDIR is assigned to Dan Wing |
|
2011-06-03
|
02 | Samuel Weiler | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Barry Leiba |
|
2011-06-03
|
02 | Samuel Weiler | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Barry Leiba |
|
2011-06-02
|
02 | Ron Bonica | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Ronald Bonica |
|
2011-06-02
|
02 | Ron Bonica | Ballot has been issued |
|
2011-06-02
|
02 | Ron Bonica | Created "Approve" ballot |
|
2011-06-02
|
02 | Amy Vezza | Last call sent |
|
2011-06-02
|
02 | Amy Vezza | State changed to In Last Call from Last Call Requested. The following Last Call Announcement was sent out: From: The IESG <iesg-secretary@ietf.org> To: … State changed to In Last Call from Last Call Requested. The following Last Call Announcement was sent out: From: The IESG <iesg-secretary@ietf.org> To: IETF-Announce <ietf-announce@ietf.org> CC: <v6ops@ietf.org> Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org Subject: Last Call: <draft-ietf-v6ops-6to4-advisory-01.txt> (Advisory Guidelines for 6to4 Deployment) to Informational RFC The IESG has received a request from the IPv6 Operations WG (v6ops) to consider the following document: - 'Advisory Guidelines for 6to4 Deployment' <draft-ietf-v6ops-6to4-advisory-01.txt> as an Informational RFC The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2011-06-16. Exceptionally, comments may be sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting. Abstract This document provides advice to network operators about deployment of the 6to4 technique for automatic tunneling of IPv6 over IPv4. It is principally addressed to Internet Service Providers, including those that do not yet support IPv6, and to Content Providers. Some advice to implementers is also included. The intention of the advice is to minimise both user dissatisfaction and help desk calls. The file can be obtained via http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-v6ops-6to4-advisory/ IESG discussion can be tracked via http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-v6ops-6to4-advisory/ No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D. |
|
2011-06-02
|
02 | Ron Bonica | Placed on agenda for telechat - 2011-06-23 |
|
2011-06-02
|
02 | Ron Bonica | Last Call was requested |
|
2011-06-02
|
02 | Ron Bonica | State changed to Last Call Requested from Publication Requested. |
|
2011-06-02
|
02 | (System) | Ballot writeup text was added |
|
2011-06-02
|
02 | (System) | Last call text was added |
|
2011-06-02
|
02 | (System) | Ballot approval text was added |
|
2011-05-27
|
02 | Fred Baker | Sent to IESG on 6 May 2011 |
|
2011-05-27
|
02 | Fred Baker | IETF state changed to Submitted to IESG for Publication from WG Document |
|
2011-05-06
|
02 | Ron Bonica | Ballot writeup text changed |
|
2011-05-05
|
02 | 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? The document shepherd is Fred Baker. Yes, I believe that it is ready for IESG consideration. (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 was presented at IETF-80 and was the subject of discussion on the mailing list both before and after. During the working group last call, 119 messages were exchanged; a number were off-topic, pertaining to draft-ietf-v6ops-6to4-to-historic, which was in WGLC at the same time as it is on a related subject. There were minor textual updates, resolved in the -01 draft. The one real negative comment came from Pekka Savola, and was resolved on the list. A number of operators indicated that the document was "excellent" and supported it. (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 might do well to be reviewed by the operations directorate. Apart from that, I don't believe that it needs specialized 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. I have no such concerns. (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? I believe that we have general consensus. (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.) There have been no threats of an appeal. There was discussion of the applicability of the technology to specific vendor's products. (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? The document contains no formal grammar, and so requires no formal grammar review. It meets the checklist requirements with the exception that it refers to the IPv4 anycast address assigned to 6to4 and the 2002::/16 prefix assigned to 6to4, resulting in a number of complaints about not using the documentation prefixes. I believe that the document is clearer for having the assigned values in it. (1.h) Has the document split its references into normative and informative? Yes. 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]. No. The internet drafts that it references are all informative references, and properly so. (1.i) Has the Document Shepherd verified that the document IANA consideration section exists and is consistent with the body of the document? Yes (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 This document provides advice to network operators about deployment of the 6to4 technique for automatic tunneling of IPv6 over IPv4. It is principally addressed to Internet Service Providers, including those that do not yet support IPv6, and to Content Providers. Some advice to implementers is also included. The intention of the advice is to minimise both user dissatisfaction and help desk calls. Working Group Summary The IPv6 Operations Working Group discussed this in the first half of 2011. There is general consensus that the guidelines for improving 6to4 behavior are reasonable and helpful. Document Quality The document was written by the original author of 6to4. Many of the people that commented in support of it observed that it was well written and informative. There are numerous 6to4 implementations; the issue in this context is that 6to4 was intended to have operational support when designed, and has been implemented largely without that operational support. As a result, it often doesn't perform as intended. This was discussed in Geoff Huston's talk in v6ops at IETF-80. |
|
2011-05-05
|
02 | Cindy Morgan | Draft added in state Publication Requested |
|
2011-05-05
|
02 | Cindy Morgan | [Note]: 'Fred Baker (fred@cisco.com) is the document shepherd.' added |
|
2011-04-26
|
01 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-v6ops-6to4-advisory-01.txt |
|
2011-04-02
|
00 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-v6ops-6to4-advisory-00.txt |