Skip to main content

IPv6 Node Requirements
RFC 6434

Revision differences

Document history

Date Rev. By Action
2015-10-14
11 (System) Notify list changed from 6man-chairs@ietf.org, draft-ietf-6man-node-req-bis@ietf.org to (None)
2012-08-22
11 (System) post-migration administrative database adjustment to the No Objection position for Sean Turner
2012-08-22
11 (System) post-migration administrative database adjustment to the No Objection position for Peter Saint-Andre
2011-12-21
11 Cindy Morgan State changed to RFC Published from RFC Ed Queue.
2011-12-21
11 (System) RFC published
2011-09-02
11 Amy Vezza State changed to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent.
2011-09-01
11 (System) IANA Action state changed to No IC from In Progress
2011-09-01
11 (System) IANA Action state changed to In Progress
2011-09-01
11 Amy Vezza IESG state changed to Approved-announcement sent
2011-09-01
11 Amy Vezza IESG has approved the document
2011-09-01
11 Amy Vezza Closed "Approve" ballot
2011-09-01
11 Amy Vezza Approval announcement text regenerated
2011-09-01
11 Amy Vezza Ballot writeup text changed
2011-09-01
11 Amy Vezza State changed to Approved-announcement to be sent from IESG Evaluation::Revised ID Needed.
2011-09-01
11 Peter Saint-Andre [Ballot Position Update] Position for Peter Saint-Andre has been changed to No Objection from Discuss
2011-07-14
11 Cindy Morgan Removed from agenda for telechat
2011-07-14
11 Cindy Morgan State changed to IESG Evaluation::Revised ID Needed from IESG Evaluation.
2011-07-14
11 Sean Turner
[Ballot comment]
This is an updated comment (I moved my discuss here):

#1) Consider adding DNSSEC to the title of 7.1.

#2) There are quite …
[Ballot comment]
This is an updated comment (I moved my discuss here):

#1) Consider adding DNSSEC to the title of 7.1.

#2) There are quite a number of errata reported on the RFCs referenced in this draft: 2460, 4861, 4191, 3971, 1981, 2675, 4443, 4291, 4941, 3315, 5952.  Resolving these would aid, some might say greatly aid, implementers.

Is there any chance of getting a group of reviewers comprised of some subset of the august body of authors/contributors from 4294 and this document to address the errata?
2011-07-14
11 Sean Turner [Ballot Position Update] Position for Sean Turner has been changed to No Objection from Discuss
2011-07-14
11 Jari Arkko [Ballot Position Update] Position for Jari Arkko has been changed to Recuse from Yes
2011-07-14
11 Stephen Farrell [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded
2011-07-14
11 Adrian Farrel [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded
2011-07-14
11 Russ Housley [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded
2011-07-14
11 Stewart Bryant [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded
2011-07-14
11 Amy Vezza State changed to IESG Evaluation from Waiting for AD Go-Ahead.
2011-07-14
11 Sean Turner [Ballot comment]
Consider adding DNSSEC to the title of 7.1.
2011-07-14
11 Sean Turner
[Ballot discuss]
This is a DISCUSS-DISCUSS (i.e., nothing for the authors to do at this time).

There are quite a number of errata reported on …
[Ballot discuss]
This is a DISCUSS-DISCUSS (i.e., nothing for the authors to do at this time).

There are quite a number of errata reported on the RFCs referenced in this draft: 2460, 4861, 4191, 3971, 1981, 2675, 4443, 4291, 4941, 3315, 5952.  Resolving these would aid, some might say greatly aid, implementers.

Is there any chance of getting a group of reviewers comprised of some subset of the august body of authors/contributors from 4294 and this document to address the errata?
2011-07-14
11 Sean Turner [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded
2011-07-13
11 Gonzalo Camarillo [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded
2011-07-13
11 Ron Bonica [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded
2011-07-13
11 Pete Resnick [Ballot comment]
I agree with Peter's DISCUSS comment.
2011-07-13
11 Pete Resnick [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded
2011-07-13
11 (System) State changed to Waiting for AD Go-Ahead from In Last Call.
2011-07-12
11 Peter Saint-Andre
[Ballot discuss]
This document is full of normative keywords and says it is "intended to be an Applicability Statement". Per Section 3.2 of RFC 2026 …
[Ballot discuss]
This document is full of normative keywords and says it is "intended to be an Applicability Statement". Per Section 3.2 of RFC 2026, why is it not on the standards track?
2011-07-12
11 Peter Saint-Andre [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded
2011-07-12
11 Amanda Baber We understand that this document doesn't require any IANA actions.
2011-07-12
11 Robert Sparks [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded
2011-07-12
11 Ralph Droms [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded
2011-07-11
11 Wesley Eddy [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded
2011-07-06
11 Wesley Eddy Request for Last Call review by TSVDIR is assigned to Allison Mankin
2011-07-06
11 Wesley Eddy Request for Last Call review by TSVDIR is assigned to Allison Mankin
2011-07-01
11 Ralph Droms Placed on agenda for telechat - 2011-07-14
2011-06-30
11 Samuel Weiler Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Uri Blumenthal
2011-06-30
11 Samuel Weiler Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Uri Blumenthal
2011-06-29
11 Amy Vezza Last call sent
2011-06-29
11 Amy Vezza
State changed to In Last Call from Last Call Requested.

The following Last Call Announcement was sent out:

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC:
Reply-To: …
State changed to In Last Call from Last Call Requested.

The following Last Call Announcement was sent out:

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC:
Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Last Call:  (IPv6 Node Requirements) to Informational RFC


The IESG has received a request from the IPv6 Maintenance WG (6man) to
consider the following document:
- 'IPv6 Node Requirements'
  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 2011-07-13. 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 defines requirements for IPv6 nodes.  It is expected
  that IPv6 will be deployed in a wide range of devices and situations.
  Specifying the requirements for IPv6 nodes allows IPv6 to function
  well and interoperate in a large number of situations and
  deployments.

  This document obsoletes RFC4294.




The file can be obtained via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-6man-node-req-bis/

IESG discussion can be tracked via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-6man-node-req-bis/


No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D.


2011-06-29
11 Ralph Droms Last Call was requested
2011-06-29
11 Ralph Droms State changed to Last Call Requested from AD Evaluation.
2011-06-29
11 Ralph Droms Ballot writeup text changed
2011-05-31
11 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-6man-node-req-bis-11.txt
2011-05-27
11 Amanda Baber We understand that this document doesn't have any IANA actions.
2011-05-25
11 Amy Vezza [Note]: changed to 'Bob Hinden (bob.hinden@gmail.com) is the document shepherd.'
2011-05-25
11 Amy Vezza
IPv6 Node Requirements RFC 4294-bis
Author(s) : E. Jankiewicz, et al.
Filename : draft-ietf-6man-node-req-bis-10.txt

(1.a) Who is the Document Shepherd for this document? Has …
IPv6 Node Requirements RFC 4294-bis
Author(s) : E. Jankiewicz, et al.
Filename : draft-ietf-6man-node-req-bis-10.txt

(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?

Bob Hinden

(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?

Two last calls were performed as well as several solicited reviews on this document. I think the current draft resolves the issues raised during this process and I am comfortable with the quality of the 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?

I think there is a strong consensus behind 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 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. There are two warnings that are not significant.


(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].

Has normative and informative references. All normative references are published RFCs.

(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?

No IANA requests.

(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

This document defines requirements for IPv6 nodes. It is expected
that IPv6 will be deployed in a wide range of devices and situations.
Specifying the requirements for IPv6 nodes allows IPv6 to function
well and interoperate in a large number of situations and
deployments.

This document obsoletes RFC4294.

Working Group Summary

The working group reviewed and discussed this document over a long period of time.
Two working group last calls preformed as well as several individual reviews. The
document has strong support in the working group.

Document Quality

The document has had extensive review and discussion in the working group. All
of the requirements outlined in this document have been widely implemented.
2011-05-25
11 Jari Arkko
[Note]: 'Assigned to Ralph to make sure there is no conflict of interest. Jari is a member of the original doc's design team (in the …
[Note]: 'Assigned to Ralph to make sure there is no conflict of interest. Jari is a member of the original doc's design team (in the previous RFC).' added
2011-05-25
11 Jari Arkko Responsible AD has been changed to Ralph Droms from Jari Arkko
2011-05-25
11 Jari Arkko [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Jari Arkko
2011-05-25
11 Jari Arkko Ballot has been issued
2011-05-25
11 Jari Arkko Created "Approve" ballot
2011-05-25
11 (System) Ballot writeup text was added
2011-05-25
11 (System) Last call text was added
2011-05-25
11 (System) Ballot approval text was added
2011-05-25
11 Jari Arkko Intended Status has been changed to Informational from None
2011-05-25
11 Jari Arkko
State changed to AD Evaluation from Publication Requested.
IPv6 Node Requirements RFC 4294-bis
Author(s)      : E. Jankiewicz, et al.
Filename      …
State changed to AD Evaluation from Publication Requested.
IPv6 Node Requirements RFC 4294-bis
Author(s)      : E. Jankiewicz, et al.
Filename        : draft-ietf-6man-node-req-bis-10.txt

(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?

Bob Hinden

(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? 

Two last calls were performed as well as several solicited reviews on this document.  I think the current draft resolves the issues raised during this process and I am comfortable with the quality of the 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? 

I think there is a strong consensus behind 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 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.  There are two warnings that are not significant.


(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].

Has normative and informative references.  All normative references are published RFCs. 

(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?

No IANA requests.

(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

      This document defines requirements for IPv6 nodes.  It is expected
      that IPv6 will be deployed in a wide range of devices and situations.
      Specifying the requirements for IPv6 nodes allows IPv6 to function
      well and interoperate in a large number of situations and
      deployments.

      This document obsoletes  RFC4294.

    Working Group Summary

      The working group reviewed and discussed this document over a long period of time.
      Two working group last calls preformed as well as several individual reviews.  The
      document has strong support in the working group.

    Document Quality

      The document has had extensive review and discussion in the working group.  All
      of the requirements outlined in this document have been widely implemented. 



2011-05-25
11 Jari Arkko Note field has been cleared
2011-05-25
11 Jari Arkko Draft added in state Publication Requested
2011-05-25
11 Jari Arkko
[Note]: 'IPv6 Node Requirements RFC 4294-bis
Author(s)       : E. Jankiewicz, et al.
Filename        : draft-ietf-6man-node-req-bis-10.txt

(1.a) Who is the …
[Note]: 'IPv6 Node Requirements RFC 4294-bis
Author(s)       : E. Jankiewicz, et al.
Filename        : draft-ietf-6man-node-req-bis-10.txt

(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?

Bob Hinden

(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? 

Two last calls were performed as well as several solicited reviews on this document.  I think the current draft resolves the issues raised during this process and I am comfortable with the quality of the 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?  

I think there is a strong consensus behind 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 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.  There are two warnings that are not significant.


(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].

Has normative and informative references.  All normative references are published RFCs. 

(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?

No IANA requests.

(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

      This document defines requirements for IPv6 nodes.  It is expected
      that IPv6 will be deployed in a wide range of devices and situations.
      Specifying the requirements for IPv6 nodes allows IPv6 to function
      well and interoperate in a large number of situations and
      deployments.

      This document obsoletes  RFC4294.

    Working Group Summary

      The working group reviewed and discussed this document over a long period of time.
      Two working group last calls preformed as well as several individual reviews.  The
      document has strong support in the working group.

    Document Quality

      The document has had extensive review and discussion in the working group.  All
      of the requirements outlined in this document have been widely implemented. 



' added
2011-05-23
10 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-6man-node-req-bis-10.txt
2011-04-26
09 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-6man-node-req-bis-09.txt
2011-03-11
08 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-6man-node-req-bis-08.txt
2010-12-16
07 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-6man-node-req-bis-07.txt
2010-10-25
06 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-6man-node-req-bis-06.txt
2010-07-12
05 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-6man-node-req-bis-05.txt
2010-03-08
04 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-6man-node-req-bis-04.txt
2010-01-14
11 (System) Document has expired
2009-07-13
03 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-6man-node-req-bis-03.txt
2008-11-03
02 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-6man-node-req-bis-02.txt
2008-02-25
01 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-6man-node-req-bis-01.txt
2008-02-11
00 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-6man-node-req-bis-00.txt