Skip to main content

Extending an IPv6 /64 Prefix from a Third Generation Partnership Project (3GPP) Mobile Interface to a LAN Link
RFC 7278

Revision differences

Document history

Date Rev. By Action
2015-10-14
10 (System) Notify list changed from v6ops-chairs@ietf.org, draft-ietf-v6ops-64share@ietf.org to (None)
2014-07-17
10 Jean Mahoney Closed request for Last Call review by GENART with state 'No Response'
2014-06-26
10 (System) RFC published
2014-06-25
10 (System) RFC Editor state changed to AUTH48-DONE from AUTH48
2014-06-09
10 (System) RFC Editor state changed to AUTH48 from RFC-EDITOR
2014-06-02
10 (System) RFC Editor state changed to RFC-EDITOR from EDIT
2014-05-19
10 Fred Baker Document shepherd changed to Fred Baker
2014-04-07
10 Amy Vezza IESG state changed to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent
2014-04-07
10 (System) RFC Editor state changed to EDIT
2014-04-07
10 (System) Announcement was received by RFC Editor
2014-04-03
10 (System) IANA Action state changed to No IC from In Progress
2014-04-03
10 (System) IANA Action state changed to In Progress
2014-04-03
10 Cindy Morgan IESG state changed to Approved-announcement sent from Approved-announcement to be sent
2014-04-03
10 Cindy Morgan IESG has approved the document
2014-04-03
10 Cindy Morgan Closed "Approve" ballot
2014-04-03
10 Cindy Morgan Ballot approval text was generated
2014-04-02
10 Joel Jaeggli addressed teds discuss with rev 10 we should be clear.
2014-04-02
10 Joel Jaeggli IESG state changed to Approved-announcement to be sent from IESG Evaluation::AD Followup
2014-04-02
10 Joel Jaeggli Removed from agenda for telechat
2014-04-02
10 Fred Baker Changed consensus to Yes from Unknown
2014-04-01
10 Ted Lemon
[Ballot comment]
The new version of the draft addresses my DISCUSS, so I'm clearing.  Thanks for the update!

Former DISCUSS:

This relates to Benoit's comment.  …
[Ballot comment]
The new version of the draft addresses my DISCUSS, so I'm clearing.  Thanks for the update!

Former DISCUSS:

This relates to Benoit's comment.  I think the reason Benoit is confused is that this document doesn't clearly specify its scope, and if I am correct this should be easy to fix.  As it is currently written, the document can be read in two different ways.  The first way, which I _think_ is what is intended, is that the 3GPP node sets up a Wifi LAN of its own, with its own SSID, and manages that link as the sole router.  The second way it can be read is that the 3GPP node joins an existing WiFi LAN and starts advertising a prefix on it.

Both scenarios are useful, but the second one is harder to specify, and the current document is inadequate to the task, as Benoit has observed.  But if I am right that the first scenario is the only one that this document intends to support, I think the document is fine as is.  So the easy way to address this DISCUSS is to add a scoping statement in the introduction:

OLD:
  3GPP mobile cellular networks such as GSM, UMTS, and LTE have
  architectural support for IPv6 [RFC6459] , but only 3GPP Release-10
  and onwards of the 3GPP specification supports DHCPv6 Prefix
  Delegation [RFC3633] for delegating IPv6 prefixes to a single LAN
  link.  To facilitate the use of IPv6 in a LAN prior to the deployment
  of DHCPv6 Prefix Delegation in 3GPP networks and in User Equipment
  (UE), this document describes requirements and provides examples on
  how the 3GPP UE radio interface assigned global /64 prefix may be
  extended from the 3GPP radio interface to a LAN link. 
NEW:
  3GPP mobile cellular networks such as GSM, UMTS, and LTE have
  architectural support for IPv6 [RFC6459] , but only 3GPP Release-10
  and onwards of the 3GPP specification supports DHCPv6 Prefix
  Delegation [RFC3633] for delegating IPv6 prefixes to a single LAN
  link. 

  To facilitate the use of IPv6 in a LAN prior to the deployment
  of DHCPv6 Prefix Delegation in 3GPP networks and in User Equipment
  (UE), this document describes requirements and provides examples on
  how the 3GPP UE radio interface assigned global /64 prefix may be
  extended from the 3GPP radio interface to a LAN link. 

  There are two scenarios where this might be done.  The first
  is where the 3GPP node sets up and manages its own LAN
  (e.g., an IEEE 802.11 SSID) and provides single-homed service
  to hosts that connect to this LAN.  A second scenario is where
  the 3GPP node connects to an existing LAN and acts as a
  router in order to provide redundant or multi-homed IPv6 service.

  This document is intended to address the first scenario, and is
  not applicable to the second scenario, because the operational
  complexities of the second scenario are not addressed.

Or something like that.  Anyway, assuming that I'm correct in understanding where this document is intended to be used, I think a quick update will resolve this DISCUSS.  If the document is intended to cover the second scenario, it's not ready for publication and will require substantial additional work, for the reasons Benoit has already stated.
2014-04-01
10 Ted Lemon [Ballot Position Update] Position for Ted Lemon has been changed to Yes from Discuss
2014-04-01
10 (System) Sub state has been changed to AD Followup from Revised ID Needed
2014-04-01
10 Vizdal Ales IANA Review state changed to Version Changed - Review Needed from IANA OK - No Actions Needed
2014-04-01
10 Vizdal Ales New version available: draft-ietf-v6ops-64share-10.txt
2014-03-30
09 Joel Jaeggli Telechat date has been changed to 2014-04-10 from 2014-03-27
2014-03-27
09 Cindy Morgan IESG state changed to IESG Evaluation::Revised I-D Needed from IESG Evaluation
2014-03-27
09 Ted Lemon
[Ballot discuss]
This relates to Benoit's comment.  I think the reason Benoit is confused is that this document doesn't clearly specify its scope, and if …
[Ballot discuss]
This relates to Benoit's comment.  I think the reason Benoit is confused is that this document doesn't clearly specify its scope, and if I am correct this should be easy to fix.  As it is currently written, the document can be read in two different ways.  The first way, which I _think_ is what is intended, is that the 3GPP node sets up a Wifi LAN of its own, with its own SSID, and manages that link as the sole router.  The second way it can be read is that the 3GPP node joins an existing WiFi LAN and starts advertising a prefix on it.

Both scenarios are useful, but the second one is harder to specify, and the current document is inadequate to the task, as Benoit has observed.  But if I am right that the first scenario is the only one that this document intends to support, I think the document is fine as is.  So the easy way to address this DISCUSS is to add a scoping statement in the introduction:

OLD:
  3GPP mobile cellular networks such as GSM, UMTS, and LTE have
  architectural support for IPv6 [RFC6459] , but only 3GPP Release-10
  and onwards of the 3GPP specification supports DHCPv6 Prefix
  Delegation [RFC3633] for delegating IPv6 prefixes to a single LAN
  link.  To facilitate the use of IPv6 in a LAN prior to the deployment
  of DHCPv6 Prefix Delegation in 3GPP networks and in User Equipment
  (UE), this document describes requirements and provides examples on
  how the 3GPP UE radio interface assigned global /64 prefix may be
  extended from the 3GPP radio interface to a LAN link. 
NEW:
  3GPP mobile cellular networks such as GSM, UMTS, and LTE have
  architectural support for IPv6 [RFC6459] , but only 3GPP Release-10
  and onwards of the 3GPP specification supports DHCPv6 Prefix
  Delegation [RFC3633] for delegating IPv6 prefixes to a single LAN
  link. 

  To facilitate the use of IPv6 in a LAN prior to the deployment
  of DHCPv6 Prefix Delegation in 3GPP networks and in User Equipment
  (UE), this document describes requirements and provides examples on
  how the 3GPP UE radio interface assigned global /64 prefix may be
  extended from the 3GPP radio interface to a LAN link. 

  There are two scenarios where this might be done.  The first
  is where the 3GPP node sets up and manages its own LAN
  (e.g., an IEEE 802.11 SSID) and provides single-homed service
  to hosts that connect to this LAN.  A second scenario is where
  the 3GPP node connects to an existing LAN and acts as a
  router in order to provide redundant or multi-homed IPv6 service.

  This document is intended to address the first scenario, and is
  not applicable to the second scenario, because the operational
  complexities of the second scenario are not addressed.

Or something like that.  Anyway, assuming that I'm correct in understanding where this document is intended to be used, I think a quick update will resolve this DISCUSS.  If the document is intended to cover the second scenario, it's not ready for publication and will require substantial additional work, for the reasons Benoit has already stated.
2014-03-27
09 Ted Lemon [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded for Ted Lemon
2014-03-27
09 Jari Arkko [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Jari Arkko
2014-03-27
09 Benoît Claise
[Ballot comment]
- Note sure if this is a real problem or not
I would like to speak with Joel and/or Ted. Maybe I overlooked …
[Ballot comment]
- Note sure if this is a real problem or not
I would like to speak with Joel and/or Ted. Maybe I overlooked something?

draft-ietf-v6ops-64share-09 is only about LAN, and not wireless LAN, right? or LAN is used generically?

I guess that with wireless LAN, the hosts might end up with MIF problems (RFC 6418). What if I introduce an UE 3GPP in my home, and this UE does wireless by default. Let's pretend that there is no authentication, and that the signal is stronger than my home WIFI, and that my hosts connect automatically to the UE's preferred signal, shall I now send all my traffic via 3GPP (and pay a lot)?
Granted: a lot of IF in that statement, but could this mechanism be used to automatically attract all traffic to 3GPP?
I'd like to remain in control of where my traffic goes. Background info, from the MIF charter:

    6. The MIF working group will document either as part of the MIF API specification, as part of the MIF architecture document, or in a separate document, the issues and requirements for a high-level MIF user interface that would allow the user to exert control over how individual applications or application roles make use of different provisioning domains and network interfaces.

Was it discussed in the WG?
Or it's not different that IPv4 or


-
I like this formulation, which could be reused in the different documents.

    The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
      "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
      document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119].

          NOTE WELL: This document is not a standard, and conformance with
          it is not required in order to claim conformance with IETF
          standards for IPv6.

      This document uses the normative keywords only for precision.

Thanks.

- Below is Victor's OPS DIR review. I don't think I've seen a reply to this.

[OPS-DIR Suggestion] One of the key criteria in RFC5706 is to deal with co-existence.  Therefore the document authors may want to add some addition text which discusses the UE (with code enabling this solution) behaviour if a Release-10 compliant gateway is present and an IPv6 prefix is supplied.  In such a case, the initialization behaviours should include a check if a prefix (i.e. >64 like a /56) is received.  Should that occur, the /64 share is not needed.

This would cover the co-existence case where a UE may connect to multiple 3GPP networks (or a single one) where some gateways have Release10 functionality and some don’t.

Additionally, perhaps a reference to the appropriate 3GPP document which outlines the UE IP attachment procedures can be made.  This may help implements understood the full upstream network characteristics and UE detailed behaviour.  Suggestion is reference to 3GPP Specification 29.061 (Section 11.2.1.3.2).


Other then these two minor points, the document appears to be of quality meets the OPS-DIR requirements.

[RFC5706 - Appendix A]

[A.3] Operations Impact Feedback:  The operational impact of enabling this function can cause broken IPv6 connectivity.  The document addresses this issue by stating that there must be tight coupling of 3GPP radio internet state with the IPv6 enabled LAN (on the same UE).

The enablement of the functions laid out in this document is consider beneficial to IPv6 deployment, and has a beneficial impact to cellular networks.

[A.1] Operational Considerations

Operational considerations are discussed and covered in detail within the document. Coexistence and backward compatibility is disused, and one recommendation was made to help improve the text in this regard.

Fault condition are discussed and corresponding behaviour outlined. (i.e. tracking of RADIO interface).

[A.2] Management Considerations

Management of the UE is not inherently discussed, but that would be covered in normal 3GPP procedures. Configuration management is not discussed, but is also not relent and the procedures and conditions outline are dynamic in nature based on information received from the network.
2014-03-27
09 Benoît Claise Ballot comment text updated for Benoit Claise
2014-03-27
09 Benoît Claise
[Ballot comment]
- Note sure if this is a real problem or not
I would like to speak with Joel and/or Ted. Maybe I overlooked …
[Ballot comment]
- Note sure if this is a real problem or not
I would like to speak with Joel and/or Ted. Maybe I overlooked something?

draft-ietf-v6ops-64share-09 is only about LAN, and not wireless LAN, right? or LAN is used generically?

I guess that with wireless LAN, the hosts might end up with MIF problems (RFC 6418). What if I introduce an UE 3GPP in my home, and this UE does wireless by default. Let's pretend that there is no authentication, and that the signal is stronger than my home WIFI, and that my hosts connect automatically to the UE's preferred signal, shall I now send all my traffic via 3GPP (and pay a lot)?
Granted: a lot of IF in that statement, but could this mechanism be used to automatically attract all traffic to 3GPP?
I'd like to remain in control of where my traffic goes. Background info, from the MIF charter:

    6. The MIF working group will document either as part of the MIF API specification, as part of the MIF architecture document, or in a separate document, the issues and requirements for a high-level MIF user interface that would allow the user to exert control over how individual applications or application roles make use of different provisioning domains and network interfaces.

Was it discussed in the WG?


-
I like this formulation, which could be reused in the different documents.

    The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
      "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
      document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119].

          NOTE WELL: This document is not a standard, and conformance with
          it is not required in order to claim conformance with IETF
          standards for IPv6.

      This document uses the normative keywords only for precision.

Thanks.
2014-03-27
09 Benoît Claise Ballot comment text updated for Benoit Claise
2014-03-26
09 Pete Resnick
[Ballot comment]
A question for the shepherd. In the writeup, you say:

  (1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard,
  …
[Ballot comment]
A question for the shepherd. In the writeup, you say:

  (1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard,
  Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? Why is
  this the proper type of RFC? Is this type of RFC indicated in the
  title page header?

  The draft is intended to be at, and requests, Informational status.

Which of course doesn't answer the second question. This looks like protocol to me. Or maybe at least BCPish stuff. The fact that it's Informational probably means that it didn't get a lot of cross area review. (Heck, in the IESG, we don't even require more than the responsible AD to read Informational documents for them to pass.) So could you explain why this was sent up as Informational?
2014-03-26
09 Pete Resnick [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Pete Resnick
2014-03-26
09 Kathleen Moriarty [Ballot comment]
I support Stephen's position
2014-03-26
09 Kathleen Moriarty [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Kathleen Moriarty
2014-03-26
09 Richard Barnes [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Richard Barnes
2014-03-26
09 Alia Atlas [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Alia Atlas
2014-03-24
09 Spencer Dawkins [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Spencer Dawkins
2014-03-24
09 Brian Haberman
[Ballot comment]
I am curious as to whether there was any discussion on how the UE may use RFC 4291 addresses out of the /64.  …
[Ballot comment]
I am curious as to whether there was any discussion on how the UE may use RFC 4291 addresses out of the /64.  Is there any expectations that UE vendors would want to do such a thing?  If so, is it worth documenting that as a third example?
2014-03-24
09 Brian Haberman [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Brian Haberman
2014-03-24
09 Stephen Farrell
[Ballot comment]


- section 3, R-2: "MUST be tightly coupled" isn't clear to
me.  Would it be clear to implementers?

- 4.1: does gateway here …
[Ballot comment]


- section 3, R-2: "MUST be tightly coupled" isn't clear to
me.  Would it be clear to implementers?

- 4.1: does gateway here always only mean GGSN from 6459?
6459 mentions other gateways so I'm not sure. Nor am I sure
if it matters, but no harm saying, if you can.

- The secdir review [1] suggests making 6092 a SHOULD
implement and calling out the potential privacy issue of
sharing addresses as described. Those seem like good changes
to make to me, and the authors seem happy to incorporate
them so I'd hope a revision with those is planned. Is it?

  [1] https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/secdir/current/msg04627.html
2014-03-24
09 Stephen Farrell [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Stephen Farrell
2014-03-13
09 Adrian Farrel [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Adrian Farrel
2014-03-04
09 Joel Jaeggli Telechat date has been changed to 2014-03-27 from 2014-03-20
2014-03-01
09 Joel Jaeggli Placed on agenda for telechat - 2014-03-20
2014-03-01
09 Joel Jaeggli IESG state changed to IESG Evaluation from Waiting for Writeup
2014-03-01
09 Joel Jaeggli Ballot has been issued
2014-03-01
09 Joel Jaeggli [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Joel Jaeggli
2014-03-01
09 Joel Jaeggli Created "Approve" ballot
2014-03-01
09 Joel Jaeggli Ballot writeup was changed
2014-02-21
09 Gunter Van de Velde Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR Completed: Has Nits. Reviewer: Victor Kuarsingh.
2014-02-21
09 (System) IESG state changed to Waiting for Writeup from In Last Call
2014-02-19
09 Tero Kivinen Request for Last Call review by SECDIR Completed: Ready. Reviewer: Yaron Sheffer.
2014-02-13
09 Tero Kivinen Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Yaron Sheffer
2014-02-13
09 Tero Kivinen Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Yaron Sheffer
2014-02-12
09 Pearl Liang
IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

IANA has reviewed draft-ietf-v6ops-64share-09, which is currently in
Last Call, and has the following comments:

We understand that, upon approval of this …
IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

IANA has reviewed draft-ietf-v6ops-64share-09, which is currently in
Last Call, and has the following comments:

We understand that, upon approval of this document, this document
doesn't require any IANA actions.

While it is helpful for the IANA Considerations section of the document to remain in place upon publication, if authors prefer to remove it, IANA does not object.

If this assessment is not accurate, please respond as soon as possible.
2014-02-12
09 (System) IANA Review state changed to IANA OK - No Actions Needed from IANA - Review Needed
2014-02-08
09 Gunter Van de Velde Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR is assigned to Victor Kuarsingh
2014-02-08
09 Gunter Van de Velde Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR is assigned to Victor Kuarsingh
2014-02-07
09 Jean Mahoney Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Ben Campbell
2014-02-07
09 Jean Mahoney Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Ben Campbell
2014-02-07
09 Amy Vezza IANA Review state changed to IANA - Review Needed
2014-02-07
09 Amy Vezza
The following Last Call announcement was sent out:

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC:
Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org
Sender:
Subject: Last Call:  (Extending an IPv6 /64 Prefix …
The following Last Call announcement was sent out:

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC:
Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org
Sender:
Subject: Last Call:  (Extending an IPv6 /64 Prefix from a 3GPP Mobile Interface to a LAN link) to Informational RFC


The IESG has received a request from the IPv6 Operations WG (v6ops) to
consider the following document:
- 'Extending an IPv6 /64 Prefix from a 3GPP Mobile Interface to a LAN
  link'
  as 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 2014-02-21. 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 describes requirements for extending an IPv6 /64 prefix
  from a User Equipment 3GPP radio interface to a LAN link as well as
  two implementation examples.




The file can be obtained via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-v6ops-64share/

IESG discussion can be tracked via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-v6ops-64share/ballot/


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


2014-02-07
09 Amy Vezza IESG state changed to In Last Call from Last Call Requested
2014-02-07
09 Amy Vezza Last call announcement was generated
2014-02-06
09 Joel Jaeggli Last call was requested
2014-02-06
09 Joel Jaeggli Last call announcement was generated
2014-02-06
09 Joel Jaeggli Ballot approval text was generated
2014-02-06
09 Joel Jaeggli Ballot writeup was generated
2014-02-06
09 Joel Jaeggli IESG state changed to Last Call Requested from AD Evaluation
2014-02-06
09 Joel Jaeggli IESG state changed to AD Evaluation from Publication Requested
2014-02-06
09 Cindy Morgan
(1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard, Internet
Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? Why is this the
proper type of RFC? …
(1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard, Internet
Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? Why is this the
proper type of RFC? Is this type of RFC indicated in the title page header?

The draft is intended to be at, and requests, Informational status.

(2) 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 summarizes the sharing of IPv6 connectivity for 3GPP devices
or UEs in advance of implementations that fully support IPv6 prefix
delegation. Specifically, this document outlines how a 3GPP device can
facilitate connection sharing where only a single, globally routable /64
IPv6 prefix is available.

Working Group Summary:

This draft was initiated in December 2012 draft-ietf-v6ops-64share-00.txt
and has been actively updated since the initial draft was published.
T-Mobile and DT have been actively working in this space advancing this
work while mobile handsets evolve to support more advanced connectivity
models including support for IPv6 prefix delegation. The overarching goal
of the draft is to enable support for multiple devices through a
connection that is enabled with globally routable IPv6 connectivity that
is typically akin to that for a single device. This work does not employ
the use of IPv6 address sharing or any form of translation related to IPv6.

The working group has commented on at length and in turn the authors
revised the draft to account for this feedback. Principally significant
feedback was given around MTU handling and matters related to IPv6
neighbor discovery in where 64share has been deployed. More recently
alignment with related work has been considered including RFC6204bis.
Finally, Neighbor Discovery Proxy (ND Proxy) [RFC4389] functionality has
been suggested as an option for extending the assigned /64 from the 3GPP
radio interface to the LAN link, but ND Proxy is an experimental
protocol and has some limitations with loop-avoidance.

Document Quality:

As specified in the abstract, the document is not a protocol or procedure;
the document does outline implementation details and observations of the
same to date in various modes of operation.

Personnel:

The document shepherd is John Jason Brzozowski. The responsible AD is Joel
Jaegli.

(3) Briefly describe the review of this document that was performed by the
Document Shepherd. If this version of the document is not ready for
publication, please explain why the document is being forwarded to the
IESG.

In the view of the chairs, this document is ready for publication, having
been reviewed thoroughly by working group since the document was initially
published. The shepherd tracked working group commentary. The shepherd
also read the document and ran it through idnits.

(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or
breadth of the reviews that have been performed?

No.

(5) Do portions of the document need review from a particular or from
broader perspective, e.g., security, operational complexity, AAA, DNS,
DHCP, XML, or internationalization? If so, describe the review that took
place.

No.

(6) Describe any specific concerns or issues that the Document Shepherd
has 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.

I have no issues with the document as it stands.

(7) Has each author confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR disclosures
required for full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79
have already been filed. If not, explain why?

The authors tell me that they know of no outstanding IPR disclosures.

(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If so,
summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures.

Per
http://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/search/?option=document_search&id=draft-byr
ne-v6ops-64share, there are no relevant IPR disclosures.

(9) 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?

There is general consensus for this document, generally speaking the WG
appears to understand the scope and importance of this work. Again this
work is focused on enabling IPv6 connectivity where advanced support for
IPv6 provisioning in the form of IPv6 prefix delegation appearing in
mobile devices and networks.

(10) 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 publicly available.)

No.

(11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this
document. (See http://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts
Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be
thorough.

idnits was run on draft -09, minor, miscellaneous issues were reported.

(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria,
such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.

Irrelevant.

(13) Have all references within this document been identified as either
normative or informative?

Yes.

(14) 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 plan for their completion?

No.

(15) Are there downward normative references references (see RFC 3967)? If
so, list these downward references to support the Area Director in the
Last Call procedure.

The normative references are all to informational, BCP, or standards track
documents. As an informational document, these are not downward references.

(16) Will publication of this document change the status of any existing
RFCs? Are those RFCs listed on the title page header, listed in the
abstract, and discussed in the introduction? If the RFCs are not listed in
the Abstract and Introduction, explain why, and point to the part of the
document where the relationship of this document to the other RFCs is
discussed. If this information is not in the document, explain why the WG
considers it unnecessary.

The document doesn't change the status of any RFCs.

(17) Describe the Document Shepherd's review of the IANA considerations
section, especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the
document. Confirm that all protocol extensions that the document makes are
associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm
that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm
that newly created IANA registries include a detailed specification of the
initial contents for the registry, that allocations procedures for future
registrations are defined, and a reasonable name for the new registry has
been suggested (see RFC 5226).

This memo includes no request to IANA.

(18) List any new IANA registries that require Expert Review for future
allocations. Provide any public guidance that the IESG would find useful
in selecting the IANA Experts for these new registries.

There are none.

(19) Describe reviews and automated checks performed by the Document
Shepherd to validate sections of the document written in a formal
language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc.

None. There is no formal language in the document.
2014-02-06
09 Cindy Morgan Intended Status changed to Informational
2014-02-06
09 Cindy Morgan IESG process started in state Publication Requested
2014-02-06
09 (System) Earlier history may be found in the Comment Log for /doc/draft-byrne-v6ops-64share/
2014-02-06
09 Cindy Morgan Working group state set to Submitted to IESG for Publication
2014-02-06
09 Cindy Morgan Document shepherd changed to John Jason Brzozowski
2013-10-06
09 Vizdal Ales New version available: draft-ietf-v6ops-64share-09.txt
2013-07-29
08 Joel Jaeggli Shepherding AD changed to Joel Jaeggli
2013-07-14
08 Vizdal Ales New version available: draft-ietf-v6ops-64share-08.txt
2013-05-17
07 Cameron Byrne New version available: draft-ietf-v6ops-64share-07.txt
2013-05-17
06 Cameron Byrne New version available: draft-ietf-v6ops-64share-06.txt
2013-05-17
05 Cameron Byrne New version available: draft-ietf-v6ops-64share-05.txt
2013-04-05
04 Cameron Byrne New version available: draft-ietf-v6ops-64share-04.txt
2013-02-20
03 Cameron Byrne New version available: draft-ietf-v6ops-64share-03.txt
2013-02-08
02 Cameron Byrne New version available: draft-ietf-v6ops-64share-02.txt
2013-01-29
01 Cameron Byrne New version available: draft-ietf-v6ops-64share-01.txt
2012-12-17
00 Cameron Byrne New version available: draft-ietf-v6ops-64share-00.txt