Rationale for Update to the IPv6 Flow Label Specification
RFC 6436

[Ballot discuss]
The Gen-ART Review by Pete McCann on 13-Jul-2011 raised one concern,
  and the author has suggested a text change to resolve the concern.
  Since the Internet-Draft repository is closed in preparation for
  IETF 81, I expect an RFC Editor note will be used.

  The change in Section 2 is:

  OLD:

  It is
  not made clear by the rule that there is an implied distinction
  between stateless models (in which case no assumption may be made)
  and stateful models (in which the router has explicit knowledge).

  NEW:

  It is
  not made clear by the rule that there is an implied distinction
  between stateless models (in which there is no signaling, so no specific
  assumption about the meaning of the flow label value can be made)
  and stateful models (in there is signaling and the router has explicit
  knowledge about the label).

[Ballot discuss]
The Gen-ART Review by Pete McCann on 13-Jul-2011 raised one concern,
  and the author has suggested a text change to resolve the concern.
  Since the Internet-Draft repository is closed in preparation for
  IETF 81, I expect an RFC Editor note will be used.

  The change in Section 2 is:

  OLD:

  It is
  not made clear by the rule that there is an implied distinction
  between stateless models (in which case no assumption may be made)
  and stateful models (in which the router has explicit knowledge).

  NEW:

  It is
  not made clear by the rule that there is an implied distinction
  between stateless models (in which there is no signaling, so no specific
  assumption about the meaning of the flow label value can be made)
  and stateful models (in there is signaling and the router has explicit
  knowledge about the label).

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:  (Rationale for update to the IPv6 flow label specification) to Informational RFC


The IESG has received a request from the IPv6 Maintenance WG (6man) to
consider the following document:
- 'Rationale for update to the IPv6 flow label specification'
  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 2011-07-04. 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


  Various published proposals for use of the IPv6 flow label are
  incompatible with its original specification in RFC 3697.
  Furthermore, very little practical use is made of the flow label,
  partly due to some uncertainties about the correct interpretation of
  the specification.  This document discusses and motivates changes to
  the specification in order to clarify it, and to introduce some
  additional flexibility.




The file can be obtained via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-6man-flow-update/

IESG discussion can be tracked via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-6man-flow-update/


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

Document Writeup

draft-ietf-6man-flow-update-06.txt

As required by RFC 4858 , this is the current template
for the Document Shepherd Write-Up.

Changes are expected over time. This version is dated September 17, 2008.

  (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 for this document, has reviewed
this version, and believes it is ready for IESG review.

  (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? 

This draft has been reviewed by members of the 6man WG and the
network operations community. The shepherd does not have concerns with
the depth or breadth of these 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? 

This document has strong concurrence from a small number of WG participants.

  (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?

This draft has two ID nits issues.  The draft uses 2119 keywords without
the requisite 2119 explanatory text.  Given the intended status of this
document as an Informational RFC, those keywords can be changed to
non-normative language.  The second issue (a warning) is due to an
outdated reference to a companion document which can be resolved during
the next editing phase. 
  (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].

All references are in order.

  (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
       
        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?

N/A.

  (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
      Various published proposals for use of the IPv6 flow label are
      incompatible with its original specification in RFC 3697.
      Furthermore, very little practical use is made of the flow label,
      partly due to some uncertainties about the correct interpretation of
      the specification.  This document discusses and motivates changes to
      the specification in order to clarify it, and to introduce some
      additional flexibility.

    Working Group Summary
        This document was reviewed by the 6man WG and
        represents the consensus of that groups.

    Document Quality
        This document has been reviewed by the members and co-chairs
        of the 6MAN working group.