Shepherd writeup

Title           : IPv6 Node Requirements
Authors         : Tim Chown
                  John Loughney
                  Timothy Winters
Filename        : draft-ietf-6man-rfc6434-bis-08.txt
Pages           : 40
Date            : 2018-03-20

(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

   Best Current Practice (BCP)

   This is appropriate as this document is describing the requirements
   for all IPv6 nodes.  It obsoletes the previous version of this
   document RFC6434.

(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 defines requirements for IPv6 nodes.  It is expected
   that IPv6 will be deployed in a wide range of devices and situations.
   Specifying the requirements for IPv6 nodes allows IPv6 to function
   well and interoperate in a large number of situations and

Working Group Summary:

   There is support for this document in the 6MAN working group.  There
   is a consensus to advance this document.

Document Quality:

   The quality of the document is very good, it has received adequate
   review in the working group on the mailing list and at a series of
   6man sessions at IETF meetings.  The changes from the previous
   versions have been described on the mailing list and at the 6man


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

   Document Shepherd:  Bob Hinden
   Responsible AD: Suresh Krishnan

(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

   The document Shepard has reviewed and commented on this draft, and
   followed the process in the working group, and thinks that the issues
   raised have been resolved in the current draft.

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

   No concerns.

(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

   No, N/A

(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.

   No concerns.

(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, the authors have each confirmed that there is no IPR and full
   conformance with BCP78 and BCP79.

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

   No IPR disclosures have been filed.

(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?

  There is a solid consensus around this document.  No one is opposed to
  it's publication.

(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 appeals have been threatened, nor is there any extreme discontent.

(11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this
document. (See and the Internet-Drafts
Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be

  No serious nits found.  There are two references to drafts that are now
  RFCs, and two down references.  The references to IDs are:


  They were published as RFC 8343 and RFC 8344.  These will be fixed
  in the next version, and the down references are appropriate.

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


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

  The document has a separate Normative and Information reference
  section.  References are characterized correctly.

(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.  All references are to RFC or IDs that are now RFCs (see (11) ).

(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.

  There are normative references to RFC 7739 and RFC 8021.  Both are

(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.

  This document obsoletes RFC6434 that is the earlier version of IPv6
  Node Requirements.  This is listed in the title page header and
  abstract.  It does not include this in the Introduction.  This can be
  fixed later.

(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).

   This document does not require any IANA actions.

(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.


(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.