(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 document captures the current thinking on operational and interoperability
implications of filtering IPv4 packets based upon the IPv6 options that they
contain, including guidance to operators on the best way to achieve this
filtering. For this reason, we believe that BCP is the correct track.
(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 discusses the operational and interoperability implications of
filtering IPv4 packets based on the IPv4 options they contain. It also provides
advice to operators who wish to do such filtering.
Working Group Summary:
This document received in-depth review from some key WG members. The WGLC
concluded that this is useful information that is presented in an easy to read
format.
Document Quality:
This documents evaluates, in detail, every IPv4 option that has been specified
so far and provides the following analysis: 1) The use case for each option 2)
Specific threats that have been identified with said option 3) Operational
implications of blocking said option 4) Very specific advice to operators on
how to deal with said option The format in which the information is provided
makes this document very easy to read. This is very useful information for
operators of Internet Service Provider and Enterprise networks.
Personnel:
Kiran Kumar Chittimaneni (KK) is the Document Shepherd. Joel Jaeggli is the
Area Director.
(3) Briefly describe the review of this document that was performed by the
Document Shepherd.
The Document Shepherd (also a WG chair) has followed the progression of the
draft through revisions and the WG.
(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of
the reviews that have been performed?
A WGLC was initiated, and then extended to get additional review from key WG
members. The Shepherd believes that there is now sufficient review, both in
terms of volume, and expertise.
(5) Do portions of the document need review from a particular or from broader
perspective?
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?
None.
(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?
Yes.
(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document?
No IPR disclosures have been filed.
(9) How solid is the WG consensus behind this document?
The most involved / active WG participants did respond and their comments were
supportive. We also requested a thorough review from three key members of the
WG. We believe there is general consensus in the WG.
(10) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent?
Not at all.
(11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this document.
-- Obsolete informational reference: RFC 2407 (Obsoleted by RFC 4306)
-- Outdated reference: A later version (-03) exists of
draft-stoica-diffserv-dps-02
-- The ID Nits tool spat out a few missing references (people)
== Missing Reference: 'ZSu' is mentioned on line 1239, but not defined
== Missing Reference: 'Finn' is mentioned on line 1240, but not defined
== Missing Reference: 'VerSteeg' is mentioned on line 1241, but not defined
== Missing Reference: 'Lee' is mentioned on line 1242, but not defined
(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such
as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.
N/A.
(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?
No - all normative references are to RFCs.
(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.
None.
(16) Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs?
No / N/A.
(17) Describe the Document Shepherd's review of the IANA considerations section.
No IANA action requested or required. This matches the text of the document.
(18) List any new IANA registries that require Expert Review for future
allocations.
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 / N/A.