Write up for draft-ietf-dhc-dhcp4o6-saddr-opt(-04).txt:
(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?
Standards Track. This is the proper type as it defines new
options and the steps a used to make use of those options in
provisioning softwires that use DHCPv4 over DHCPv6 (RFC7341).
(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:
This document extends DHCPv4 over DHCPv6 (RFC7341) to provide
some IPv4-over IPv6 softwire mechanisms and deployment scenarios
two additional needed pieces of information. It defines a new
DHCPv6 option to indicate the preferred prefix for the client to
bind its IPv4 configuration to, and a new DHCPv4 option to
indicate the IPv6 address associated with the client's IPv4
configuration, and the procedures to use these options.
Working Group Summary:
This document has been in development, first as an individual
submission in the software WG, and more recently in the DHC WG.
It has undergone about 10 revisions - with more recent changes
being fairly minor.
The document has had extensive review and input by the working
group and by "DHCP experts" and "Softwires experts".
Bernie Volz is the document shepherd. Suresh Krishnan is the
current 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.
I read the document thoroughly several times, and submitted
editorial and technical suggestions to the authors, which they
implemented. I believe it is ready for publication.
(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or
breadth of the reviews that have been performed?
The document has had a good deal of careful review. However, the
volume of response recently has not been as great as the WG
chairs would have liked, but all responses received were
(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.
I think the document is good as written, and serves a useful
(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 I have confirmed with the 4 co-authors. They all report they
are not aware of any IPR to disclose.
(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 consensus behind this document and no objections were
(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
(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.
There are none.
(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review
criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type
(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
(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.
(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
Yes and the RFC being updated is listed in the title page
header - it is a minor update to RFC7598.
(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
There are IANA actions and they are compatible with DHC WG IANA
actions and adds an option to each of the DHCPv4 (BOOTP) and
DHCPv6 option 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
There are no 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.
There are no such parts to the document.