Intended status: Informational
Shepherd: Fred Baker
AD: Joel Jaeggli
Technical Summary
This document presents advice on certain routing-related design
choices that arise when designing IPv6 networks (both dual-stack
and IPv6-only). The intended audience is someone designing an
IPv6 network who is knowledgeable about best current practices
around IPv4 network design, and wishes to learn the corresponding
practices for IPv6.
Working Group Summary
The working group, and the authors, took their time with this. Early
on, it didn't have a lot of content. With the addition of a coauthor,
it became more useful. There is no dissent that I'm aware of.
Document Quality
It's not a protocol, but it is based in part on operational IPv6
deployment.
(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.
My review consisted in two parts. I followed working group discussion
on the draft, which was originally filed as
draft-matthews-v6ops-design-guidelines-00.txt in June 2012, adopted
in 2013, and is now being finalized. I have also read the draft,
and concur with its findings and recommendations.
(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.
It was reviewed by a bunch of operators. If the Ops Directorate
wants to look at it, so be it, but I don't think any of these are
needed.
(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?
I am comfortable with the document.
(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, they have
(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document?
If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR
disclosures.
No IPR disclosures to date.
(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?
I would describe this as a late bloomer - for quite a while, the
WG found little of meat. However, at this point, it has the WG's
recommendation.
(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.
It quotes RFC 4861, and the snippet contain the word "MUST". The
stipulation is not presented in this draft, simply quoted.
(13) Have all references within this document been identified as
either normative or informative?
The references are all informative, and are classified so.
(16) Will publication of this document change the status of any
existing RFCs?
No
(17) Describe the Document Shepherd's review of the IANA considerations
section, especially with regard to its consistency with the body
of the document.
It is correct. The document doesn't ask IANA to do anything.