Skip to main content

Shepherd writeup
draft-ietf-6man-multi-homed-host

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?

   Proposed Standard. The type is indicated 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 document describes expected IPv6 host behavior in a network that
   has more than one prefix and next-hop routers to choose from, and each
   prefix allocated by an upstream network/router also implements BCP 38
   (RFC2827) ingress filtering. The document also applies to other deployment
   cases such as the usage of stateful firewalls. The solution described in the
   document may interact with the RFC6724 source address selection Rule 5.5.
   This concerns the situation where a multihomed host has multiple provider
   allocated  addresses (formed from a Router Advertisement advertised prefixes
   received from multiple but not necessarily all next-hop routers) and the
   host should know to which router to send its traffic sourced from a given
   source address.

   The document updates RFC4861.

Working Group Summary

  The document has the support of the WG. There is no points with
  controversy and/or rough consensus.

Document Quality

   The solution described in the document is already implemented
   in some form by some popular operating system IP stacks. 

   The document does not contain MIBs, Media Types or
   other expert review requiring material.

Personnel

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

   Jouni Korhonen (jouni.nospam@gmail.com) is the document Shepherd.
   Suresh Krishnan (suresh.krishnan@ericsson.com) is the responsible Area Director.

(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 has done a review of the -06 version of the document
   and found it ready for publication. There are some small editorial
   nits that can and will be corrected by the RFC Editor.

(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.

   Not really. The shepherd does recommend that the Int-Dir also reviews
   the document as a part of the typical directorate review cycle

(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.

   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. Both authors indicated they have no knowledge of IPRs on this
   document.

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

   No.

(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?   

   The document has been discussed in length in the 6MAN WG. There
   is a consensus behind this 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.

   No IDnits found that need to be corrected. Some of the reported
   IDnits are either mistakenly caught editorial issues or would be
   automatically corrected when a new revision of the document is
   produced.

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

   Not applicable.

(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? If such normative
references exist, what is the plan for their completion?

   None.

(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? 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.

   Yes. RFC4681 will be updated and this is indicated in the title page
   header and the abstract.

(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).

   Not applicable. There are no requests to IANA.

(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.

   Not applicable. There are no requests to IANA.

(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.

   Not applicable.
Back