Shepherd writeup

(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? 

Informational. The text performs a gap analysis of IPv6 renumbering mechanisms. A future text may be developed to describe BCP, which should improve as the gaps are addressed, which could be done within the v6ops WG.

(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 presents a review of mechanisms that could be used for IPv6 site renumbering, analysing them for gaps in tools, protocols and procedures. In undertaking the gap analysis, the document gives pointers to future work that is required to improve renumbering operations, while it also lists issues which it may not be possible to solve.

Working Group Summary:
Was there anything in WG process that is worth noting? For example, was there controversy about particular points or were there decisions where the consensus was particularly rough? 

There is no significant controversy on the gap-analysis draft. Most issues were teased out through review of the draft-ietf-6renum-enterpris draft, which was recently sent to the IESG.
One gap that was identified in that review, which needs to be clarified in 7.3, is that appropriate monitoring of the renumbering process is needed to ensure it completes as intended, e.g. to look for old prefixes in use.
There was some discussion as to whether "parameterised ip-specific configuration" is the best phrase to use to talk about introducing wider use of macros, etc. The phrase is a little clumsy, but no one as yet has suggested anything better.
There was some discussion on DNS tools in the draft-ietf-6renum-enterprise review. In particular about wider deployment of Dynamic DNS support. This illustrates that some gaps are due to lack of deployment of tools that *could* be used, but are not due to that lack of deployment.
It may be useful to add a section listing the identified gaps more explicitly; the work that has been identified to date is captured in draft-carpenter-6renum-next-steps-00 (which is not intended to be taken forward, rather be an inventory of work items to progress appropriately).
There was some discussion of router renumbering. RFC2894 is old (August 2000) and has not as far as we're aware been used, and it is unlikely that it would ever be used. A more appropriate approach may fall under 'Unified Configuration Management' as described in 6.3. A small clarification may be beneficial.

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? 

There has been a reasonable number of reviews for a document of this type, which have led to it being in its fifth version since WG adoption. I have notified the authors of a small number of grammatical errors, which will be processed along with IESG comments.

Who is the Document Shepherd? Who is the Responsible Area Director? 
Shepherd: Tim Chown 
AD: Ron Bonica

(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. 

I have read the final version of the document and believe that subject to those points raised in the WG summary being addressed the document is ready for publication. IESG comments on those points would be welcomed.

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


(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. 


(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. 
The document completes a set of three IPv6 renumbering documents, the first two of which have now been reviewed by the IESG.  This document was left to last in cad IESG review identified new gaps - so far just one arose (about monitoring the renumbering process).

(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?


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


(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 strong consensus throughout the WG.

(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.) 


(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 thorough. 

No nits reported by the checking tool.

(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? 


(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? 

All normative references are published RFCs.

(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. 

Not applicable, the document is Informational.

(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. 


(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). 

No IANA considerations.

(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. 

No IANA considerations.

(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.