Write up for draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv4-over-dhcpv6:
(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 because this document specifies
a means for using DHCPv4 over an IPv6 only transport. 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:
This document specifies a mechanism for obtaining IPv4 configuration
information dynamically in IPv6 networks by carrying DHCPv4 messages
Working Group Summary:
The WG was asked to develop a standard for how IPv4 configuration
parameters could be obtained when no native IPv4 communication was
necessarily possible (i.e., native DHCPv4 could not be used because
there was no IPv4 transport). The WG developed several proposals and
preferred this mechanism.
The standard encapsulates standard DHCPv4 messages inside DHCPv6
messages to provide for transporting the DHCPv4 client requests to
a server that can process the DHCPv4 requests.
Please also see draft-ietf-dhc-v4configuration as it provides
additional motivation and analysis of alternatives.
This document has had thorough reviews by many interested and
knowledgeable folks (beyond those mentioned in the acknowledgements
section). There were no significant points of difficulty or
controversy with the contents of the document, though there has been
some controversy as to whether this technology is needed at all as
native IPv4 (DHCPv4) could be supported directly over many "IPv6
An implementation has been done - see
Bernie Volz is the document shepherd. Ted Lemon is the 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, and submitted quite a few editorial
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?
No, the document has had a good deal of careful review.
(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.
This is strictly a DHCP document, and has had sufficient review from
(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 purpose.
(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 did confirm that they are not aware of any IPR.
(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If
so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR
(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 strong consensus behind this document and in particular from
very active WG participants (i.e. "DHCP experts").
(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
Yes - Ole Troan has concerns that the mechanism described by this draft
is not needed for existing tunneling technology as native DHCPv4 is
available and would not require any changes to clients, relays, and
servers (I have included this here as his objections are on the DHC WG
mailing list). I don't believe Ole has a technical objection to the
mechanism, other than he does not feel it is needed.
The WG consensus is that when native DHCPv4 is available, it should be
used. However, when it is not or when the network provider does not
want any native IPv4 traffic on parts of their network, the mechanism
in this draft will be required and useful.
(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.
The document passes the idnits tool (no nits found).
(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review
criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type
The DHCPv6 messages and options defined by this document follow the
recommendations of draft-ietf-dhc-option-guidelines-17, which has been
submitted to the RC Editor, and were carefully reviewed by the DHC WG.
There are no other formal review requirements.
(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
No, all the normative references are to 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.
(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
(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
I reviewed the IANA Considerations section and it is fine and clear; the
actions are to define new DHCPv6 messages and options and the appropriate
registry is clearly identified 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
(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.