Updates to the Special-Purpose IP Address Registries
draft-bchv-rfc6890bis-07

[Ballot comment]
Pointing 2001::/32 to the entire Teredo document casts a fairly large net. I think a reference to RFC4380 section 5 would get interested parties to the information they want more rapidly.

[Ballot comment]
S 2.2.
Why was the Reserved-by-Protocol value for 255.255.255.255
changed? A sentence here about why would help.

S 3.
Daniel's name is spelled "Migault"

[Ballot comment]
The draft has been rewritten as an update to RFC6890 to clarify past IESG and IANA concerns.

My previous DISCUSS position:

After looking at the comments from the IESG and IANA, it seems better to rewrite this document as an update to RFC6890 for improved clarity. The authors will work on a new version written as an update to RFC6890. I will put it up on future telechat when it is ready.

[Ballot comment]
I am clearing my DISCUSS as per DISCUSS from Suresh. My old DISCUSS below:

A document that obsoletes an existing RFC needs to contain section describing changes since. I haven't found this.
(Ben and Benoit are effectively explained this in more details.)

[Ballot discuss]
After looking at the comments from the IESG and IANA, it seems better to rewrite this document as an update to RFC6890 for improved clarity. The authors will work on a new version written as an update to RFC6890. I will put it up on future telechat when it is ready.

[Ballot discuss]
A document that obsoletes an existing RFC needs to contain section describing changes since. I haven't found this.
(Ben and Benoit are effectively explained this in more details.)

[Ballot comment]
I share the concern raided by Suresh and Benoit about the difficulty in reviewing this draft without a summary of changes. There were similar concerns raised by the GenART and RTGDIR reviewers.

[Ballot comment]
I find myself in a situation in which I have no clue how to review this document.
- Should we compare information with https://www.iana.org/assignments/iana-ipv4-special-registry/iana-ipv4-special-registry.xhtml and https://www.iana.org/assignments/iana-ipv6-special-registry/iana-ipv6-special-registry.xhtml ?
- Should we do a diff with RFC6890?
- Something else?

All the information I can read is:
  This memo reiterates the assignments made to the IPv4 and IPv6
  Special-Purpose Address Registries and augments the fields contained
  within the registries in order to address the confusion raised by the
  definition of "global".

Should I spend my time trying to determine what has been augmented.

This really calls for a "what has changed since RFC 6890" section

My ballot status: No record.

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

The IANA Services Operator has completed its review of draft-bchv-rfc6890bis-04.txt. If any part of this review is inaccurate, please let us know.

We understand that this document is asking us to update the references to RFC 6890 in the IPv4 and IPv6 Special-Purpose Address registries, change the name of the "Global" field to "Globally Reachable," and make changes to at least three registrations. Please see below for our lists of questions about and changes associated with each registry. If we've missed any actions, please let us know.

About Section 3.2.2, IPv4 Special-Purpose Addresses:

1) In the registry, in the footnote associated with this document's Table 4, the reference to RFC 4379 has been replaced with a reference to RFC-ietf-mpls-rfc4379bis-09.

2) Should this document include 192.0.0.10/32, registered for RFC-ietf-tram-turn-server-discovery-12 last month?

3) Are we being asked to remove "section 2.2" from the reference for NAT64/DNS64 Discovery (192.0.0.170/32, 192.0.0.171/32)? See Table 11.

4) In Table 17, 192.175.48.0/24 has been labeled "Private-Use" rather than "Direct Delegation AS112 Service," the label that appears in the registry. Which is correct?

5) In the registry and in RFC 6890, the Reserved-by-Protocol field for 255.255.255.255/32 reads "False." In Table 22, it's been changed to "True." Can you confirm that "True" is correct? If so, should we add this document as a reference for the registration?

About Section 3.2.3, IPv6 Special-Purpose Addresses:

1) We understand that according to Table 29, which describes 2001::/32 (TEREDO), we are being asked to change the entry for the Globally Reachable field, which currently reads "False," to "N/A." We should also add a footnote to that field that reads "See [RFC 4380] for details." Can you confirm that this is correct? If so, should we add this document as a reference for the registration?

2) Should this document include 2001:1::2/128, registered for RFC-ietf-tram-turn-server-discovery-12 last month?

3) We understand that this document adds a footnote to the Globally Reachable field for fc00::/7 (Unique-Local). Should this document be added as a reference for this registration?

Finally, we understand that we also need to update the reference to RFC 6890 at https://www.iana.org/help/abuse-answers.

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 Services Specialist
PTI

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

Changes are expected over time. This version is dated 24 February 2012.

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

The type of the RFC is Best Current Practice.

The document does not have technical protocol description. Instead it defines 1) the required information for IPv4/IPv6 Special-Purpose Address Registry IPv4/IPv6 Special-Purpose Address Registry that need to be provided to the IANA as well as 2) an update of the IPv4/IPv6 Special-Purpose Address Registry.

RFC2026 section 5 mentions:
"""
Finally, the BCP series may be used to document the operation of the IETF itself.  For example, this document defines the IETF Standards Process and is published as a BCP.
"""

The current draft document defines the necessary parameters the IANA needs to allocate a IPv4 IPv6 Special-Purpose Addresses block. The document  allocates the  IETF Protocol Assignments blocks (Table 7). In fact the block has already been allocated by RFC6890, but as this document obsoletes RFC 6890, the reference for this block assignement has been updated as well.  Other updates are mostly to correct "nits" from the previous document as well as to collect all documents that required a block allocation. In that sense the document is essentially documenting IETF operations and so BCP si the appropriated type.
 
In addition, the document updates RFC6890 which is a BCP document.

The type of document is provided in the Header page.

(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

  Relevant content can frequently be found in the abstract
  and/or introduction of the document. If not, this may be
  an indication that there are deficiencies in the abstract
  or introduction.
 
This memo updates the IANA IPv6 Special-Purpose Address Registries to address issues raised by the definition of a global prefix.  This memo contains all the assignments made by RFC 6890 to the IANA Special-Purpose Address Registries.


Working Group Summary

  Was the document considered in any WG, and if so, why was
  it not adopted as a work item there? Was there controversy
  about particular points that caused the WG to not adopt the
  document?

The document is not considered in any working group document. The document addresses small issues raised by RFC6890, and as such an adoption process was not believed to be necessary. Again the scope of the document is mostly focused on updating the allocation of Special Purpose Block Addresses blocks as well as updating the IPv4-IPv6 Special Purpose Addresses Registries with parameters defined by other RFCs.  This limits the possible controversies.

The update was presented in Seoul (IETF97), the drafts have been sent to the int-area mailing list and no issue has been raised. 
 
Document Quality

  Are there existing implementations of the protocol? Have a
  significant number of vendors indicated their plan to
  implement the specification? Are there any reviewers that
  merit special mention as having done a thorough review,
  e.g., one that resulted in important changes or a
  conclusion that the document had no substantive issues? If
  there was a MIB Doctor, Media Type or other expert review,
  what was its course (briefly)? In the case of a Media Type
  review, on what date was the request posted?

This is not a protocol description document. The main involved entity are IETF and IANA. IANA is co-authoring the draft and the IETF community is represented by the co-authors as well as by the communication through mailing lists.
 
Personnel

  Who is the Document Shepherd? Who is the Responsible Area
  Director?

  Daniel Migault is the Document Shepherd, Suresh Krishnan  is the responsible AD.
 
(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 document shepherd reviewed the document and address comments to clarify the draft. Comments have been considered and one was discussed on the mailing list. The comment bring to the mailing list was about how to clarify a reference and whether additional text should be added.

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

No.

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

No.

(6) Describe any specific concerns or issues that the Document Shepherd
has with this document that the Responsible Area Director and/or the
IESG should be aware of? For example, perhaps he or she is uncomfortable
with certain parts of the document, or has concerns whether there really
is a need for it. In any event, if the interested community has
discussed those issues and has indicated that it still wishes to advance
the document, detail those concerns here.

Draft revision have been sent to the int-area mailing list. Presentation was provided during IETF97. Co-authors have addressed the received comments.

(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.

Each authors 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. Michelle confirmed on behalf of Leo.

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

No.

(9) How solid is the consensus of the interested community behind this
document? Does it represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals,
with others being silent, or does the interested community as a whole
understand and agree with it?

None opposed. The draft did not raised much comments on the mailing list. However, people raised comments during the intarea session during the IETF97 in Seoul (addressed) and the IETF needs to address the issues raised on RFC6890. My understanding is that considering comments from RFC6890, there is a consensus over that document.


(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 https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts
Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be
thorough.

Running idnits raises warnings on:
    - IP addresses mentioned in the document, if used for examples are not compliant with addresses defined by RFC6890. In fact these IP addresses are not used for examples.
    - RFC 4843 defining ORCHIDv1 is mentioned as a reference while RFC7443 defining ORCHIDv2 obsoletes RFC4843.  RFC 4843 was mentioned as an informative reference for the allocated block that corresponds to ORCHIDv1. This block has been deprecated. The reason for having an obsolete reference  RFC 4843 instead of RFC 7343 is that RFC 7343 does not deprecate the ORCHIDv1 prefix. The IANA section of 4843 defines the expiration date of the ORCHIDv1 prefix. RFC 7343 defines the
ORCHIDv2 prefix.

   



The idnits provides the following output:
"""
  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 :
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

  == There are 15 instances of lines with non-RFC6890-compliant IPv4
    addresses in the document.  If these are example addresses, they should
    be changed.

  == There are 3 instances of lines with private range IPv4 addresses in the
    document.  If these are generic example addresses, they should be changed
    to use any of the ranges defined in RFC 6890 (or successor): 192.0.2.x,
    198.51.100.x or 203.0.113.x.

  == There are 10 instances of lines with non-RFC3849-compliant IPv6
    addresses in the document.  If these are example addresses, they should
    be changed.


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

    No issues found here.

  Checking references for intended status: Best Current Practice
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (See RFCs 3967 and 4897 for information about using normative references
    to lower-maturity documents in RFCs)

  -- Looks like a reference, but probably isn't: '1' on line 695
    '[1] Unless allowed by a more specific allocation....'

  -- Looks like a reference, but probably isn't: '2' on line 861
    '| Address Block        | 2002::/16 [2] |...'

  -- Looks like a reference, but probably isn't: '3' on line 800
    '[3] According to the 3+3 Plan outlined in [RFC7954], the terminat...'

  -- Looks like a reference, but probably isn't: '4' on line 803
    '[4] Can be used as a multicast source as well....'

  -- Looks like a reference, but probably isn't: '5' on line 805
    '[5] To be used as EID space by routers enabled by LISP [RFC6830]....'

  -- Looks like a reference, but probably isn't: '6' on line 875
    '[6] See [RFC3056] for details....'

  -- Looks like a reference, but probably isn't: '7' on line 911
    '[7] See [RFC4193] for more details on the routability of Unique-L...'

  -- Obsolete informational reference (is this intentional?): RFC 4843
    (Obsoleted by RFC 7343)


    Summary: 0 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 3 warnings (==), 8 comments (--).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"""



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

This does not apply to the draft.

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

RFC2119 is a normative document as it must be read to understand the current document. 
Other references are informative as they are not mandatory to be read to understand the document.


(14) Are there normative references to documents that are not ready for
advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state? If such normative
references exist, what is the plan for their completion?

No. RFC2119 is the only normative refrence and is ready.

(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.

No.

(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 interested community considers it unnecessary.

This document obsoletes RFC6890. This is specified in the header, the abstract and in the introduction.

(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).

The document is an IANA section document, so the IANA section is by design consistent with the document's body.
There is no protocol extensions in the document.
The document defines the IANA registries as well as lists the different IPv4/6 IPv4  Special-Purpose Address Registries

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

There is no need for expert review. The document lists a new IANA registry: Globally Reachable. It has been defined by the IANA itself as a replacement for the former "global" information.

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

No additional review has been done.

The following Last Call announcement was sent out:

From: The IESG
To: "IETF-Announce"
CC: draft-bchv-rfc6890bis@ietf.org, suresh.krishnan@ericsson.com, mglt.ietf@gmail.com
Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org
Sender:
Subject: Last Call:  (Special-Purpose IP Address Registries) to Best Current Practice


The IESG has received a request from an individual submitter to consider
the following document:
- 'Special-Purpose IP Address Registries'
  as Best Current Practice

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 2017-03-10. 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 memo updates the IANA IPv6 Special-Purpose Address Registries to
  address issues raised by the definition of a global prefix.  For
  completeness, this memo contains all the assignments made to the IANA
  Special-Purpose Address Registries.

  This memo obsoletes RFC 6890.




The file can be obtained via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-bchv-rfc6890bis/

IESG discussion can be tracked via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-bchv-rfc6890bis/ballot/


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

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

Changes are expected over time. This version is dated 24 February 2012.

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

The type of the RFC is Best Current Practice.

The document does not have technical protocol description. Instead it defines 1) the required information for IPv4/IPv6 Special-Purpose Address Registry IPv4/IPv6 Special-Purpose Address Registry that need to be provided to the IANA as well as 2) an update of the IPv4/IPv6 Special-Purpose Address Registry.

RFC2026 section 5 mentions:
"""
Finally, the BCP series may be used to document the operation of the IETF itself.  For example, this document defines the IETF Standards Process and is published as a BCP.
"""

The current draft document defines the necessary parameters the IANA needs to allocate a IPv4 IPv6 Special-Purpose Addresses block. The document  does not allocate new blocks, and updates is mostly to correct "nits" from the previous document as well as to collect all documents that required a block allocation. In that sense the document is essentially documenting IETF operations and so BCP si the appropriated type.
 
In addition, the document updates RFC6890 which is a BCP document.

The type of document is provided in the Header page.

(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

  Relevant content can frequently be found in the abstract
  and/or introduction of the document. If not, this may be
  an indication that there are deficiencies in the abstract
  or introduction.
 
This memo updates the IANA IPv6 Special-Purpose Address Registries to address issues raised by the definition of a global prefix.  This memo contains all the assignments made by RFC 6890 to the IANA Special-Purpose Address Registries.


Working Group Summary

  Was the document considered in any WG, and if so, why was
  it not adopted as a work item there? Was there controversy
  about particular points that caused the WG to not adopt the
  document?

The document is not considered in any working group document. The document addresses small issues raised by RFC6890, and as such an adoption process was not believed to be necessary. Again the scope of the document is mostly focused on updating the allocation of Special Purpose Block Addresses blocks as well as updating the IPv4-IPv6 Special Purpose Addresses Registries with parameters defined by other RFCs.  This limits the possible controversies.

The update was presented in Seoul (IETF97), the drafts have been sent to the int-area mailing list and no issue has been raised. 
 
Document Quality

  Are there existing implementations of the protocol? Have a
  significant number of vendors indicated their plan to
  implement the specification? Are there any reviewers that
  merit special mention as having done a thorough review,
  e.g., one that resulted in important changes or a
  conclusion that the document had no substantive issues? If
  there was a MIB Doctor, Media Type or other expert review,
  what was its course (briefly)? In the case of a Media Type
  review, on what date was the request posted?

This is not a protocol description document. The main involved entity are IETF and IANA. IANA is co-authoring the draft and the IETF community is represented by the co-authors as well as by the communication through mailing lists.
 
Personnel

  Who is the Document Shepherd? Who is the Responsible Area
  Director?

  Daniel Migault is the Document Shepherd, Suresh Krishnan  is the responsible AD.
 
(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 document shepherd reviewed the document and address comments to clarify the draft. Comments have been considered and one was discussed on the mailing list. The comment bring to the mailing list was about how to clarify a reference and whether additional text should be added.

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

No.

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

No.

(6) Describe any specific concerns or issues that the Document Shepherd
has with this document that the Responsible Area Director and/or the
IESG should be aware of? For example, perhaps he or she is uncomfortable
with certain parts of the document, or has concerns whether there really
is a need for it. In any event, if the interested community has
discussed those issues and has indicated that it still wishes to advance
the document, detail those concerns here.

Draft revision have been sent to the int-area mailing list. Presentation was provided during IETF97. Co-authors have addressed the received comments.

(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.

Each authors 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. Michelle confirmed on behalf of Leo.

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

No.

(9) How solid is the consensus of the interested community behind this
document? Does it represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals,
with others being silent, or does the interested community as a whole
understand and agree with it?

None opposed. The draft did not raised much comments on the mailing list. However, people raised comments during the intarea session during the IETF97 in Seoul (addressed) and the IETF needs to address the issues raised on RFC6890. My understanding is that considering comments from RFC6890, there is a consensus over that document.


(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 https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts
Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be
thorough.

Running idnits raises warnings on:
    - IP addresses mentioned in the document, if used for examples are not compliant with addresses defined by RFC6890. In fact these IP addresses are not used for examples.
    - RFC 4843 defining ORCHIDv1 is mentioned as a reference while RFC7443 defining ORCHIDv2 obsoletes RFC4843.  RFC 4843 was mentioned as an informative reference for the allocated block that corresponds to ORCHIDv1. This block has been deprecated. The reason for having an obsolete reference  RFC 4843 instead of RFC 7343 is that RFC 7343 does not deprecate the ORCHIDv1 prefix. The IANA section of 4843 defines the expiration date of the ORCHIDv1 prefix. RFC 7343 defines the
ORCHIDv2 prefix.

   



The idnits provides the following output:
"""
  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 :
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

  == There are 15 instances of lines with non-RFC6890-compliant IPv4
    addresses in the document.  If these are example addresses, they should
    be changed.

  == There are 3 instances of lines with private range IPv4 addresses in the
    document.  If these are generic example addresses, they should be changed
    to use any of the ranges defined in RFC 6890 (or successor): 192.0.2.x,
    198.51.100.x or 203.0.113.x.

  == There are 10 instances of lines with non-RFC3849-compliant IPv6
    addresses in the document.  If these are example addresses, they should
    be changed.


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

    No issues found here.

  Checking references for intended status: Best Current Practice
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (See RFCs 3967 and 4897 for information about using normative references
    to lower-maturity documents in RFCs)

  -- Looks like a reference, but probably isn't: '1' on line 695
    '[1] Unless allowed by a more specific allocation....'

  -- Looks like a reference, but probably isn't: '2' on line 861
    '| Address Block        | 2002::/16 [2] |...'

  -- Looks like a reference, but probably isn't: '3' on line 800
    '[3] According to the 3+3 Plan outlined in [RFC7954], the terminat...'

  -- Looks like a reference, but probably isn't: '4' on line 803
    '[4] Can be used as a multicast source as well....'

  -- Looks like a reference, but probably isn't: '5' on line 805
    '[5] To be used as EID space by routers enabled by LISP [RFC6830]....'

  -- Looks like a reference, but probably isn't: '6' on line 875
    '[6] See [RFC3056] for details....'

  -- Looks like a reference, but probably isn't: '7' on line 911
    '[7] See [RFC4193] for more details on the routability of Unique-L...'

  -- Obsolete informational reference (is this intentional?): RFC 4843
    (Obsoleted by RFC 7343)


    Summary: 0 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 3 warnings (==), 8 comments (--).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"""



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

This does not apply to the draft.

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

RFC2119 is a normative document as it must be read to understand the current document. 
Other references are informative as they are not mandatory to be read to understand the document.


(14) Are there normative references to documents that are not ready for
advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state? If such normative
references exist, what is the plan for their completion?

No. RFC2119 is the only normative refrence and is ready.

(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.

No.

(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 interested community considers it unnecessary.

This document obsoletes RFC6890. This is specified in the header, the abstract and in the introduction.

(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).

The document is an IANA section document, so the IANA section is by design consistent with the document's body.
There is no protocol extensions in the document.
The document defines the IANA registries as well as lists the different IPv4/6 IPv4  Special-Purpose Address Registries

(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.

The document lists a new IANA registry: Globally Reachable. It has been defined by the IANA itself as a replacement for the former "global" information.

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

No additional review has been done.