Skip to main content

Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP) Endpoint Identifier (EID) Block
RFC 7954

Revision differences

Document history

Date Rev. By Action
2016-09-21
13 (System)
Received changes through RFC Editor sync (created alias RFC 7954, changed title to 'Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP) Endpoint Identifier (EID) Block', changed abstract to …
Received changes through RFC Editor sync (created alias RFC 7954, changed title to 'Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP) Endpoint Identifier (EID) Block', changed abstract to 'This document directs IANA to allocate a /32 IPv6 prefix for use with the Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP).  The prefix will be used for local intra-domain routing and global endpoint identification, by sites deploying LISP as Endpoint Identifier (EID) addressing space.', changed pages to 12, changed standardization level to Experimental, changed state to RFC, added RFC published event at 2016-09-21, changed IESG state to RFC Published)
2016-09-21
13 (System) RFC published
2016-09-19
13 (System) RFC Editor state changed to <a href="http://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc7954">AUTH48-DONE</a> from AUTH48
2016-08-08
13 (System) RFC Editor state changed to <a href="http://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc7954">AUTH48</a> from RFC-EDITOR
2016-07-26
13 (System) RFC Editor state changed to RFC-EDITOR from REF
2016-04-26
13 (System) RFC Editor state changed to REF from EDIT
2016-04-10
13 (System) IANA Action state changed to RFC-Ed-Ack from Waiting on RFC Editor
2016-04-07
13 (System) IANA Action state changed to Waiting on RFC Editor from Waiting on Authors
2016-04-07
13 (System) IANA Action state changed to Waiting on Authors from In Progress
2016-04-06
13 (System) IANA Action state changed to In Progress
2016-04-06
13 (System) RFC Editor state changed to EDIT
2016-04-06
13 (System) IESG state changed to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent
2016-04-06
13 (System) Announcement was received by RFC Editor
2016-04-06
13 Cindy Morgan IESG state changed to Approved-announcement sent from IESG Evaluation::AD Followup
2016-04-06
13 Cindy Morgan IESG has approved the document
2016-04-06
13 Cindy Morgan Closed "Approve" ballot
2016-04-06
13 Brian Haberman Ballot writeup was changed
2016-04-06
13 Brian Haberman Ballot approval text was generated
2016-02-27
13 Alvaro Retana [Ballot Position Update] Position for Alvaro Retana has been changed to No Objection from Discuss
2016-02-26
13 Luigi Iannone Changed draft from "Informational" to "Experimental" as requested during IESG evaluation.
2016-02-26
13 Luigi Iannone Intended Status changed to Experimental from Informational
2016-02-26
13 (System) Sub state has been changed to AD Followup from Revised ID Needed
2016-02-26
13 Luigi Iannone IANA Review state changed to Version Changed - Review Needed from IANA OK - Actions Needed
2016-02-26
13 Luigi Iannone New version available: draft-ietf-lisp-eid-block-13.txt
2016-02-21
12 Gunter Van de Velde Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR Completed. Reviewer: Ron Bonica.
2016-02-18
12 Meral Shirazipour Request for Telechat review by GENART Completed: Ready. Reviewer: Meral Shirazipour.
2016-02-18
12 Cindy Morgan IESG state changed to IESG Evaluation::Revised I-D Needed from IESG Evaluation
2016-02-18
12 Jari Arkko [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Jari Arkko
2016-02-17
12 Benoît Claise [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Benoit Claise
2016-02-17
12 Ben Campbell [Ballot Position Update] Position for Ben Campbell has been changed to No Objection from No Record
2016-02-17
12 Ben Campbell
[Ballot comment]
Substantive:

- section 6:
Predictions that the IETF will or will not do something  are risky propositions at best. I suggest stating a …
[Ballot comment]
Substantive:

- section 6:
Predictions that the IETF will or will not do something  are risky propositions at best. I suggest stating a default result that will occur _unless_ the IETF chooses to take action.

Editorial:
There's quite a number of grammar and word choice errors. I list some below, but I am sure I did not catch everything. I suggest another pass at proofreading before publication.

-3:
s/"avoid penalize"/"avoid penalizing"
s/"ask an allocation"/"ask for an allocation"  ; or "request an allocation"
s/"avoid non-LISP domains to fragment " / "allow non-LISP domains to avoid fragmenting"
"... which would negatively impact the BGP routing infrastructure"
Which would cause negative impact, the fragmentation, or the avoidance of the fragmentation?
s/"worth to mention"/"worth mentioning"

-4
s/"Such prefix"/"Such prefixes"  ; or "This prefix"
/"As the LISP adoption progress"/"As the LISP adoption progresses"

"... the EID block will potentially help in reducing the impact on the BGP routing infrastructure with respect to the case of the same number of adopters using global unicast space allocated by RIRs "
Convoluted sentence. Can it be simplified?
s/"Such trend"/"Such trends" ; or "This trend"

"With the exception of PITR case (described above)"
Which case is the PITR case? This is the first use of PITR.

-5:
s/"looks as sufficiently large"/"appears sufficiently large"

-9:
s/"provided by IANA before published"/"provided by IANA before publication"
2016-02-17
12 Ben Campbell Ballot comment text updated for Ben Campbell
2016-02-17
12 Barry Leiba [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Barry Leiba
2016-02-16
12 Terry Manderson [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Terry Manderson
2016-02-16
12 Deborah Brungard [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Deborah Brungard
2016-02-15
12 Alvaro Retana
[Ballot discuss]
This document is clearly requesting the assignment of LISP EID space for an experiment.  Why is it not an Experimental document?  [I may …
[Ballot discuss]
This document is clearly requesting the assignment of LISP EID space for an experiment.  Why is it not an Experimental document?  [I may have missed the discussion in the archive.]

Along the same lines, the conditions for the experiment to be successful and the IETF to consider whether to transform the prefix into a permanent assignment (Section 6.  3+3 Allocation Plan) are not defined.  How should this decision be made?  How will the IETF know the experiment is successful?
2016-02-15
12 Alvaro Retana
[Ballot comment]
An early allocation was made in October/2015.  The values should be included in the document.

The dates mentioned assumed a start date of …
[Ballot comment]
An early allocation was made in October/2015.  The values should be included in the document.

The dates mentioned assumed a start date of December/2015, but the document isn't getting approved until now — is there a need to change the dates?  Just wondering — part of it is that I'm not sure if RIPE has already started allocating addresses or not.

Please expand ROA and put in a reference.
2016-02-15
12 Alvaro Retana [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded for Alvaro Retana
2016-02-15
12 Stephen Farrell [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Stephen Farrell
2016-02-15
12 Spencer Dawkins
[Ballot comment]
Could you expand EID as EID Endpoint IDentifier in the document title?

I'm seeing text that's fairly clear, but could use a native …
[Ballot comment]
Could you expand EID as EID Endpoint IDentifier in the document title?

I'm seeing text that's fairly clear, but could use a native English speaker pass. For example,

  Transition Mechanism:  The existence of a LISP specific EID block may
        prove useful in transition scenarios.  A non-LISP domain would
        ask an allocation in the LISP EID block and use it to deploy
        ^^^ "ask for"? or "request"?
        LISP in its network.  Such allocation will not be announced in
                              ^^^^ "Such an"? or "This"?
        the BGP routing infrastructure (cf., Section 4).  This approach
        will avoid non-LISP domains to fragment their already allocated
                    ^^^ "fragmenting previously allocated non-LISP address
                        space in non-LISP domains"?
        non-LISP addressing space, which may lead to BGP routing table
        inflation since it may (rightfully) be announced in the BGP
                                ^^^^^^^^^^ "correctly"?
        routing infrastructure.
2016-02-15
12 Spencer Dawkins [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Spencer Dawkins
2016-02-11
12 Jean Mahoney Request for Telechat review by GENART is assigned to Meral Shirazipour
2016-02-11
12 Jean Mahoney Request for Telechat review by GENART is assigned to Meral Shirazipour
2016-02-05
12 Meral Shirazipour Request for Last Call review by GENART Completed: Ready with Nits. Reviewer: Meral Shirazipour.
2016-02-05
12 Brian Haberman IESG state changed to IESG Evaluation from Waiting for AD Go-Ahead
2016-02-05
12 (System) IESG state changed to Waiting for AD Go-Ahead from In Last Call
2016-02-04
12 (System) IANA Review state changed to IANA OK - Actions Needed from Version Changed - Review Needed
2016-02-04
12 Sabrina Tanamal
(Via drafts-lastcall-comment@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

IANA has completed its review of draft-ietf-lisp-eid-block-12.txt. If any part of this review is inaccurate, please let us know.

IANA …
(Via drafts-lastcall-comment@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

IANA has completed its review of draft-ietf-lisp-eid-block-12.txt. If any part of this review is inaccurate, please let us know.

IANA understands that, upon approval of this document, there is a single action which IANA must complete.

In the IANA IPv6 Special-Purpose Address Registry located at:

http://www.iana.org/assignments/iana-ipv6-special-registry/

there is a TEMPORARY registration for EID Space for LISP. This address block is:

2001:5::/32

Upon approval, IANA understands that this temporary allocation will be made permanent and the reference will be changed to [ RFC-to-be ].

IANA notes that, in section 9 of the current document, the following language appears:

"The reserved address space is requested for a period of time of three initial years starting in beginning 2015 (until December 2018), with an option to extend it by three years (until December 2021) up on decision of the IETF (see Section 6). Following the policies outlined in [RFC5226], upon IETF Review, by December 2018 decision should be made on whether to have a permanent EID block assignment. If the IETF review outcome will be that is not worth to have a reserved prefix as global EID space, the whole /32 will be taken out from the IPv6 Special Purpose Address Registry and put back in the free pool managed by IANA by end of January 2018."

Given that Last Call is in process in February 2016, do the authors want to adjust or modify the dates in that paragraph so that they match up with current reality?

IANA understands that this is the only action required to be completed upon approval of this document.

Note:  The actions requested in this document will not be completed until the document has been approved for publication as an RFC. This message is only to confirm what actions will be performed. 


Thank you,

Sabrina Tanamal
IANA Specialist
ICANN
2016-02-01
12 Brian Haberman Ballot has been issued
2016-02-01
12 Brian Haberman [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Brian Haberman
2016-02-01
12 Brian Haberman Created "Approve" ballot
2016-02-01
12 Brian Haberman Ballot writeup was changed
2016-02-01
12 Brian Haberman Placed on agenda for telechat - 2016-02-18
2016-02-01
12 Brian Haberman Changed consensus to Yes from Unknown
2016-01-28
12 Jean Mahoney Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Meral Shirazipour
2016-01-28
12 Jean Mahoney Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Meral Shirazipour
2016-01-25
12 Gunter Van de Velde Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR is assigned to Ron Bonica
2016-01-25
12 Gunter Van de Velde Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR is assigned to Ron Bonica
2016-01-22
12 Cindy Morgan
The following Last Call announcement was sent out:<br><br>From: The IESG <iesg-secretary@ietf.org>
To: "IETF-Announce" <ietf-announce@ietf.org>
CC: draft-ietf-lisp-eid-block@ietf.org, lisp-chairs@ietf.org, brian@innovationslab.net, …
The following Last Call announcement was sent out:<br><br>From: The IESG <iesg-secretary@ietf.org>
To: "IETF-Announce" <ietf-announce@ietf.org>
CC: draft-ietf-lisp-eid-block@ietf.org, lisp-chairs@ietf.org, brian@innovationslab.net, lisp@ietf.org, damien.saucez@gmail.com
Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org
Sender: <iesg-secretary@ietf.org>
Subject: Last Call: <draft-ietf-lisp-eid-block-12.txt> (LISP EID Block) to Informational RFC


The IESG has received a request from the Locator/ID Separation Protocol
WG (lisp) to consider the following document:
- 'LISP EID Block'
  <draft-ietf-lisp-eid-block-12.txt> 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 2016-02-05. 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 is a direction to IANA to allocate a /32 IPv6 prefix for use
  with the Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP).  The prefix will be
  used for local intra-domain routing and global endpoint
  identification, by sites deploying LISP as EID (Endpoint IDentifier)
  addressing space.




The file can be obtained via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-lisp-eid-block/

IESG discussion can be tracked via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-lisp-eid-block/ballot/


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


2016-01-22
12 Cindy Morgan IESG state changed to In Last Call from Last Call Requested
2016-01-22
12 Cindy Morgan Last call announcement was generated
2016-01-22
12 Brian Haberman Last call was requested
2016-01-22
12 Brian Haberman IESG state changed to Last Call Requested from Waiting for AD Go-Ahead
2015-10-14
12 (System) Notify list changed from lisp-chairs@ietf.org to (None)
2015-05-21
11 Meral Shirazipour Request for Last Call review by GENART Completed: Ready with Nits. Reviewer: Meral Shirazipour.
2015-05-19
11 Luigi Iannone IANA Review state changed to Version Changed - Review Needed from IANA OK - Actions Needed
2015-05-19
12 Luigi Iannone New version available: draft-ietf-lisp-eid-block-12.txt
2015-04-28
11 (System) IANA Review state changed to IANA OK - Actions Needed from IANA - Review Needed
2015-04-28
11 Pearl Liang
(Via drafts-lastcall@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

IANA has reviewed draft-ietf-lisp-eid-block-10.  Authors should review the comments and/or questions below.  Please report any inaccuracies and respond to any …
(Via drafts-lastcall@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

IANA has reviewed draft-ietf-lisp-eid-block-10.  Authors should review the comments and/or questions below.  Please report any inaccuracies and respond to any questions as soon as possible.

IANA's reviewer has the following comments/questions:

IANA understands that, upon approval of this document, there is a
single action which IANA must complete.

IANA will work with the authors to assign a /32 IPv6 prefix in the
Special Purpose Address Registry for use as the global LISP EID space
using a hierarchical allocation as documented in [RFC5226] and
summarized below:

+----------------------+--------------------+
| Attribute | Value |
+----------------------+--------------------+
| Address Block | XXXX:YYYY::/32 |
| Name | EID Space for LISP |
| RFC | [ REF-to-be ] |
| Allocation Date | 2015 |
| Termination Date | December 2018 |
| Source | True |
| Destination | True |
| Forwardable | True |
| Global | True |
| Reserved-by-protocol | True |
+----------------------+--------------------+


IANA further understands that the authors propose an address block in this document, however IANA suggests that the assignment should come from the next available /32 from 2001::/23, which appears to be 2001:5::/32. The actual assignment will be confirmed during the implementation of these actions after document approval.

The block will be reserved for a period of time of three initial years
starting in beginning 2015 (until December 2018), with an option to
extend it by three years (until December 2021) up on decision of the
IETF. Following the policies outlined in [RFC5226], upon IETF Review,
by December 2018 decision should be made on whether to have a
permanent EID block assignment.

IANA understands that this is the only action required upon approval
of this document.


Note:  The actions requested in this document will not be completed until the document has been approved for publication as an RFC. This message is only to confirm what actions will be performed.
2015-04-28
11 (System) IESG state changed to Waiting for AD Go-Ahead from In Last Call
2015-04-27
11 Luigi Iannone New version available: draft-ietf-lisp-eid-block-11.txt
2015-04-26
10 Gunter Van de Velde Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR Completed: Serious Issues. Reviewer: Ron Bonica.
2015-04-19
10 Gunter Van de Velde Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR is assigned to Ron Bonica
2015-04-19
10 Gunter Van de Velde Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR is assigned to Ron Bonica
2015-04-16
10 Jean Mahoney Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Meral Shirazipour
2015-04-16
10 Jean Mahoney Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Meral Shirazipour
2015-04-14
10 Amy Vezza IANA Review state changed to IANA - Review Needed
2015-04-14
10 Amy Vezza
The following Last Call announcement was sent out:<br><br>From: The IESG <iesg-secretary@ietf.org>
To: IETF-Announce <ietf-announce@ietf.org>
CC: <lisp@ietf.org>
Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org
Sender: …
The following Last Call announcement was sent out:<br><br>From: The IESG <iesg-secretary@ietf.org>
To: IETF-Announce <ietf-announce@ietf.org>
CC: <lisp@ietf.org>
Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org
Sender: <iesg-secretary@ietf.org>
Subject: Last Call: <draft-ietf-lisp-eid-block-10.txt> (LISP EID Block) to Informational RFC


The IESG has received a request from the Locator/ID Separation Protocol
WG (lisp) to consider the following document:
- 'LISP EID Block'
  <draft-ietf-lisp-eid-block-10.txt> 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 2015-04-28. 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 is a direction to IANA to allocate a /32 IPv6 prefix for use
  with the Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP).  The prefix will be
  used for local intra-domain routing and global endpoint
  identification, by sites deploying LISP as EID (Endpoint IDentifier)
  addressing space.




The file can be obtained via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-lisp-eid-block/

IESG discussion can be tracked via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-lisp-eid-block/ballot/


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


2015-04-14
10 Amy Vezza IESG state changed to In Last Call from Last Call Requested
2015-04-14
10 Amy Vezza Last call announcement was generated
2015-04-14
10 Brian Haberman Last call was requested
2015-04-14
10 Brian Haberman IESG state changed to Last Call Requested from AD Evaluation::External Party
2015-03-27
10 Brian Haberman Shepherding AD changed to Brian Haberman
2015-03-25
10 Amy Vezza Shepherding AD changed to Deborah Brungard
2015-01-23
10 Brian Haberman Notification list changed to lisp-chairs@tools.ietf.org, draft-ietf-lisp-eid-block.all@tools.ietf.org, lisp@ietf.org from lisp-chairs@tools.ietf.org, draft-ietf-lisp-eid-block@tools.ietf.org
2015-01-23
10 Brian Haberman IESG state changed to AD Evaluation::External Party from AD Evaluation
2015-01-19
10 Brian Haberman IESG state changed to AD Evaluation from Publication Requested
2015-01-19
10 Brian Haberman IESG state changed to Publication Requested from Dead
2015-01-19
10 Luigi Iannone The referencing document (draft-ietf-lisp-eid-block-mgmnt) is now in "submitted to IESG for Publication" state, hence this document can move along with it.
2015-01-19
10 Luigi Iannone Tag Waiting for Referencing Document cleared.
2015-01-08
10 Luigi Iannone New version available: draft-ietf-lisp-eid-block-10.txt
2015-01-02
09 (System) Document has expired
2014-11-13
09 Joel Halpern Will advance with draft-ietf-lisp-eid-block-mgmnt.
2014-11-13
09 Joel Halpern Tag Waiting for Referencing Document set. Tag Waiting for Referenced Document cleared.
2014-11-13
09 Joel Halpern Tag Waiting for Referenced Document set.
2014-10-07
09 Luigi Iannone WG last Call passed in May 2014
2014-10-07
09 Luigi Iannone IETF WG state changed to Submitted to IESG for Publication from WG Document
2014-07-23
09 Damien Saucez
draft-ietf-lisp-eid-block-09  Document Shepherd Write-Up

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

(1) What type of …
draft-ietf-lisp-eid-block-09  Document Shepherd Write-Up

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

(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?

    This draft is targeting publication as an Informational RFC.

    It is the proper type of RFC since it directs the IANA to allocate a /16 IPv6
    prefix for use with the Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP).

    The RFC type is clearly marked in the title page header.


(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 is a direction to IANA to allocate a /32 IPv6 prefix for use with
    the Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP).  The prefix will be used for
    local intra-domain routing and global endpoint identification, by sites
    deploying LISP as EID (Endpoint IDentifier) addressing space.

Working Group Summary:

    No concerns were expressed by the WG on the necessity of assigning an EID
    prefix for Internet LISP deployment.  However, long discussions have been
    focused on the prefix length to be given for the EID prefix.  After very
    long debates on the mailing list and WG meetings, the WG reached
    consensus on a /16 IPv6 prefix with a request to IANA to reserve adjacent
    space for future EID use/growth.

Document Quality:

    The document is well written and of a high standard.  No special review
    was performed nor is needed.  The massive feedback and implication of the
    group indicates the willingness to use the requested prefix once assigned
    by IANA.  People having contributed significantly to the work are well
    acknowledged in the document.

Personnel:

Who is the Document Shepherd?

    Damien Saucez <damien.saucez@inria.fr>

Who is the Responsible Area Director?

    Brian Haberman <brian@innovationslab.net>

(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.

    The shepherd reviewed carefully the document in version -08 and requested
    authors some minor changes.  The authors have answered with a new version
    (-09) taking into account all comments.  The shepherd has carefully
    reviewed the corrected the current version -09.

    The text is clear and understandable.

    The shepherd has checked the ID nits and there is one warning and no
    errors.  The warning is an outdated reference to the
    draft-ietf-lisp-eid-block-mgmnt ID that was renewed just after the
    submission of the current document.

    The reviewer has checked the mailing list and meeting minutes and
    publication WG consensus has been reached appropriately.

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

    The massive discussions on the mailing list and the answer given by the
    authors indicates deep reviews from the the WG members.

    The shepherd has no concerns.

(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 broader review is required for this document.

(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.

    The shepherd has no specific concerns or issues to point out.

(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?

    All authors have made conforming IPR disclosure.

    According to authors, the funding projects acknowledged in the document
    do not claim intellectual property of the work.

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

    The shepherd has requested for IPR disclosure for this draft on the LISP
    WG mailing list on 10 June 2014 (threat available on
    http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/lisp/current/msg05274.html).  At the
    date of today (21 July 2014) nobody claimed intellectual property.

(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 has been clear consensus behind this document, showing that the WG
    as a whole understands and agrees with it.

(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.)

    Nobody did show discontent nor threatened an appeal.

(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.

    The shepherd has checked the ID nits and there is one warning and no
    errors.  The warning is an outdated reference to the
    draft-ietf-lisp-eid-block-mgmnt ID that was renewed just after the
    submission of the current document.

    Notation for side notes in Sec.  9 are ambiguous and could be interpreted
    as references.  The shepherd consider though that this notation is
    appropriate.

    details:

idnits 2.13.00

/tmp/draft-ietf-lisp-eid-block-09.txt:

Checking boilerplate required by RFC 5378 and the IETF Trust (see
http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info):
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

    No issues found here.

Checking nits according to http://www.ietf.org/id-info/1id-guidelines.txt:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

    No issues found here.

Checking nits according to http://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist :
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

    No issues found here.

Miscellaneous warnings:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

-- The document date (July 1, 2014) is 20 days in the past.  Is this
    intentional?


Checking references for intended status: Informational
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

-- Looks like a reference, but probably isn't: '1' on line 327

-- Looks like a reference, but probably isn't: '2' on line 328

-- Looks like a reference, but probably isn't: '3' on line 328

-- Looks like a reference, but probably isn't: '4' on line 330

-- Looks like a reference, but probably isn't: '5' on line 331

== Outdated reference: A later version (-02) exists of
    draft-ietf-lisp-eid-block-mgmnt-01


    Summary: 0 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 1 warning (==), 6 comments (--).</pre>


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

    No formal review is required.

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

    All references are correctly identified as either normative or informative


(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?

    Normative reference [I-D.ietf-lisp-eid-block-mgmnt] is outdated and causes
    a circular dependency with the current document.  No last call has been
    made yet for this normative reference but is planned and likely to get
    accepted.

(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.

    There are no downward normative 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.

    No existing RFC's status will change due to the publication of this
    document.

(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 document instructs the IANA to assign a /32 IPv6 prefix for use as the
  global LISP EID space using a hierarchical allocation as outlined in
  [RFC5226].  The entire document is written to support the IANA consideration
  section.  The shepherd considers the document appropriate and clearly
  identifying IANA needs.




(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.

  Table 1 in Section 9 requires review from IANA registries.

              +----------------------+--------------------+
              | Attribute            | Value              |
              +----------------------+--------------------+
              | Address Block        | XXXX:YYYY::/32 [1] |
              | Name                | EID Space for LISP |
              | RFC                  | [This Document]    |
              | Allocation Date      | 2015 [2]          |
              | Termination Date    | December 2018 [3]  |
              | Source              | True [4]          |
              | Destination          | True              |
              | Forwardable          | True              |
              | Global              | True              |
              | Reserved-by-protocol | True [5]          |
              +----------------------+--------------------+

  [1] XXXX and YYYY values to be provided by IANA before published as
    RFC. [2] The actual allocation date to be provided by IANA. [3]
  According to the 3+3 Plan outlined in this document termination date
    can be postponed to December 2021. [4] Can be used as a multicast
  source as well. [5] To be used as EID space by LISP [RFC6830] enabled
                                routers. 

(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.

  The shepherd has checked automatic validation using idnits 2.13.00
2014-07-01
09 Luigi Iannone New version available: draft-ietf-lisp-eid-block-09.txt
2014-05-22
08 Luigi Iannone Document shepherd changed to Damien Saucez
2014-01-31
08 Luigi Iannone New version available: draft-ietf-lisp-eid-block-08.txt
2013-11-27
07 Luigi Iannone New version available: draft-ietf-lisp-eid-block-07.txt
2013-10-21
06 Luigi Iannone New version available: draft-ietf-lisp-eid-block-06.txt
2013-09-19
05 Tero Kivinen Closed request for Last Call review by SECDIR with state 'No Response'
2013-08-29
05 Luigi Iannone New version available: draft-ietf-lisp-eid-block-05.txt
2013-08-29
04 (System) Document has expired
2013-08-29
04 (System) State changed to Dead from AD is watching
2013-06-13
04 Tero Kivinen Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Glen Zorn
2013-06-13
04 Tero Kivinen Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Glen Zorn
2013-06-10
04 Tero Kivinen Closed request for Last Call review by SECDIR with state 'No Response'
2013-02-25
04 Luigi Iannone New version available: draft-ietf-lisp-eid-block-04.txt
2012-12-12
03 Terry Manderson IETF state changed to WG Document from Submitted to IESG for Publication
2012-11-30
03 Meral Shirazipour Request for Last Call review by GENART Completed: Ready with Issues. Reviewer: Meral Shirazipour.
2012-11-27
03 Terry Manderson Returned to the WG to undergo review and restructure based on IETF LC comments
2012-11-27
03 Brian Haberman State changed to AD is watching from Waiting for AD Go-Ahead
2012-11-27
03 (System) State changed to Waiting for AD Go-Ahead from In Last Call
2012-11-26
03 Pearl Liang
IANA has reviewed draft-ietf-lisp-eid-block-03 and has the following comments:

IANA has questions about the IANA action requested in this document.

This document requests that IANA …
IANA has reviewed draft-ietf-lisp-eid-block-03 and has the following comments:

IANA has questions about the IANA action requested in this document.

This document requests that IANA assign a /16 IPv6 prefix for use as the global
LISP EID space using a hierarchical allocation as outlined in [RFC5226].

Also, IANA understands that during the the discussion related to this document,
the LISP Working Group agreed in suggesting to IANA to reserve adjacent
addressing space for future use as EID space if needs come.

IANA Questions and Comments -->

IANA would like to have the authors and working group consider whether this /16
should come from 2000::/3, which has been set aside as Global Unicast, or some
other range.

Wherever it comes from, IANA thinks it would be useful if a specific prefix
should be suggested. In particular, it would be nice to know whether the
additional /16 they want to reserve should be the first or second /16 in the /15
or whether it doesn't matter.

IANA also thinks that wherever the prefix comes from, we should register it in
the IANA IPv6 Special Purpose Address Registry
(http://www.iana.org/assignments/iana-ipv6-special-registry/iana-ipv6-special-registry.xml).
The authors and working group should be aware that the registry format is being
updated at the moment, in draft-bonica-special-purpose. It would be helpful if
they could provide all the information described in 2.1 of that document so that
we can fit everything neatly together.

IANA would like to consult on what we should do with this prefix in the
context of RFC 6491. Should we issue an AS0 ROA for this prefix in the event
that we are asked to issue RPKI certificates for various resources? It would be
useful if the IANA Considerations section could be clear on that, too.

In consulting the last call discussion on the ietf@ietf.org list it was noted
that the authors were requesting the remainder of the /12 to be reserved and not
just
the /15 as IANA first thought. Firstly, it would be good if they could add that
request in the IANA Considerations section so it is clear to us what to do
if/when the document is approved.

IANA was under the impression that the plan was to use an algorithm to assign
addresses from the /16 but discussion on the list has made it clear that this is
not the case. On the list, one of the authors suggested the RIRs as a
distribution framework. Without taking a view on that, it would be helpful if
the IANA Considerations section of the document either describes the
distribution framework or describes the criteria that have to be met to
establish one in the future.

IANA understands that this is the only IANA action requested by the current
draft of the document and would be the only required to be completed upon
approval of this document.

Note: The actions requested in this document will not be completed
until the document has been approved for publication as an RFC.
2012-11-18
03 Tero Kivinen Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Eric Rescorla
2012-11-18
03 Tero Kivinen Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Eric Rescorla
2012-11-15
03 Jean Mahoney Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Meral Shirazipour
2012-11-15
03 Jean Mahoney Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Meral Shirazipour
2012-11-13
03 Amy Vezza
The following Last Call announcement was sent out:<br><br>From: The IESG <iesg-secretary@ietf.org>
To: IETF-Announce <ietf-announce@ietf.org>
CC: <lisp@ietf.org>
Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: …
The following Last Call announcement was sent out:<br><br>From: The IESG <iesg-secretary@ietf.org>
To: IETF-Announce <ietf-announce@ietf.org>
CC: <lisp@ietf.org>
Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Last Call: <draft-ietf-lisp-eid-block-03.txt> (LISP EID Block) to Informational RFC


The IESG has received a request from the Locator/ID Separation Protocol
WG (lisp) to consider the following document:
- 'LISP EID Block'
  <draft-ietf-lisp-eid-block-03.txt> 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 2012-11-27. 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 is a direction to IANA to allocate a /16 IPv6 prefix for use
  with the Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP).  The prefix will be
  used for local intra-domain routing and global endpoint
  identification, by sites deploying LISP as EID (Endpoint IDentifier)
  addressing space.




The file can be obtained via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-lisp-eid-block/

IESG discussion can be tracked via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-lisp-eid-block/ballot/


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


2012-11-13
03 Amy Vezza State changed to In Last Call from Last Call Requested
2012-11-13
03 Amy Vezza Last call announcement was generated
2012-11-13
03 Brian Haberman Last call was requested
2012-11-13
03 Brian Haberman State changed to Last Call Requested from AD Evaluation::AD Followup
2012-11-07
03 (System) Sub state has been changed to AD Followup from Revised ID Needed
2012-11-07
03 Luigi Iannone New version available: draft-ietf-lisp-eid-block-03.txt
2012-09-04
02 Brian Haberman State changed to AD Evaluation::Revised ID Needed from AD Evaluation
2012-08-29
02 Brian Haberman State changed to AD Evaluation from Publication Requested
2012-08-29
02 Brian Haberman Ballot approval text was generated
2012-08-29
02 Brian Haberman Ballot writeup was changed
2012-08-29
02 Brian Haberman Ballot writeup was generated
2012-08-29
02 Brian Haberman Last call announcement was generated
2012-08-29
02 Brian Haberman Intended Status changed to Informational
2012-08-29
02 Brian Haberman IESG process started in state Publication Requested
2012-08-29
02 (System) Earlier history may be found in the Comment Log for <a href="/doc/draft-lisp-eid-block/">draft-lisp-eid-block</a>
2012-08-21
02 Terry Manderson IETF state changed to Submitted to IESG for Publication from WG Consensus: Waiting for Write-Up
2012-08-21
02 Terry Manderson Changed protocol writeup
2012-08-15
02 Terry Manderson IETF state changed to WG Consensus: Waiting for Write-Up from WG Document
2012-08-15
02 Terry Manderson Write-up submitted.
2012-08-15
02 Terry Manderson WGLC reached consensus, in writeup
2012-08-15
02 Terry Manderson Changed shepherd to Terry Manderson
2012-04-24
02 Luigi Iannone New version available: draft-ietf-lisp-eid-block-02.txt
2011-10-31
01 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-lisp-eid-block-01.txt
2011-07-02
00 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-lisp-eid-block-00.txt