Updates to the IPv6 Multicast Addressing Architecture
draft-ietf-6man-multicast-addr-arch-update-08

[Ballot comment]
-- Section 4.1.1 --

  X and Y may each be set to 0 or 1.

What does this addition mean?  What, specifically, is the change it's making?  I'd like to know the answer; more importantly, I think the document needs to be clear about it.  (And the same goes for the similar lines in Sections 4.2.1 and 4.2.2.)

[Ballot comment]
I have no objection to the publication of this document, and just two
small issues you could look at as you progress the document.

---

Section 3 is titled "Flag Bits: A Recommendation" however, the text is
clear in its use of "MUST" and this a Standards Track document.

I think you should change the title to "Flag Bits: New Processing Rules"

Furthermore, in Section 1, you should not refer to this as a
recommendation.

---

In Section 4 you have text referring to ff1 such as:

  X and Y may each be set to 0 or 1.

... but no indication as to how or why these bits might be set. Are they
or some specific use? Are they reserved like the r bits in ff2?

Adding some clue or reference would be good.

IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

IANA has reviewed draft-ietf-6man-multicast-addr-arch-update-05, which is currently in Last Call, and has the following comments:

We understand that, upon approval of this document, there are no IANA Actions that need completion. 

While it is helpful for the IANA Considerations section of the document to remain in place upon publication, if the authors prefer to remove it, IANA doesn't object.

If this assessment is not accurate, please respond as soon as possible.

The following Last Call announcement was sent out:

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC:
Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org
Sender:
Subject: Last Call:  (Updates to the IPv6 Multicast Addressing Architecture) to Proposed Standard


The IESG has received a request from the IPv6 Maintenance WG (6man) to
consider the following document:
- 'Updates to the IPv6 Multicast Addressing Architecture'
  as Proposed
Standard

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 2014-07-02. 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 document updates the IPv6 multicast addressing architecture by
  re-defining the reserved bits as generic flag bits.  The document
  provides also some clarifications related to the use of these flag
  bits.

  This document updates RFC 3956, RFC 3306 and RFC 4291.





The file can be obtained via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-6man-multicast-addr-arch-update/

IESG discussion can be tracked via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-6man-multicast-addr-arch-update/ballot/


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

(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 document. This is the correct type because it
  changes the definition of bits in the IPv6 multicast address format.
  The type is indicated on the title 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

  This document updates the IPv6 multicast addressing architecture by
  defining the 17-20 reserved bits as generic flag bits.  The document
  provides also some clarifications related to the use of these flag
  bits.

Working Group Summary

  This work was taken over by 6MAN since it changes the IPv6
  addressing architecture, after initially starting out in MBONED.
  See
  https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-mboned-64-multicast-address-format/writeup/

Document Quality

  The 6man working group appoints reviewers for all documents being
  advanced to the IESG. This document has been reviewed in detail by
  Jinmei Tetsuya. In addition to the chair's and shepherd's review.

Personnel

  Document Shepherd: Ole Troan
  Responsible Area Director: Brian Haberman

(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 has been reviewed by the 6man chairs, ID nits have been
  checked, as well as the appointed 6man reviewer.

(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 WG has discussed those issues and
has indicated that it still wishes to advance the document, detail those
concerns here.

  None. After this second cycle of the document (with the change from
  MBONED to 6MAN).

(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?
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? 

  Strong consensus.

(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 appeal or discontent registered.

(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.

No nits.

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

  No formal reviews required.

(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?

  No.

(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.

  It will update RFC 3956, RFC 3306 and RFC 4291.

(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).

  I can confirm all points.

(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.

  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.

  There are no formal language in this document.