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 |