Shepherd writeup
rfc7550-12

As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document
Shepherd Write-Up.

Changes are expected over time. This version is dated 24 February
2012.

Write-up for draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-stateful-issues-11

(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 I-D proposes several updates to RFC3315 and
  RFC3633 (both are proposed standard), so this is the right type. The
  intended type is clearly indicated in the 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:

Technical Summary

  DHCPv6 (RFC3316) was not written with the initial expectation that
  additional stateful DHCPv6 options would be developed. Prefix
  Delegation (RFC3633) introduced the IA_PD option, which is stateful.
  Implementation experience of the CPE model described in RFC 7084 has
  shown multiple issues with the DHCPv6 protocol in supporting multiple
  stateful options. This document updates RFC 3315 and RFC 3633 to
  address the identified issues. It is also considered an essential
  milestone in the RFC3315bis work.

Working Group Summary

  This draft was around in the DHC for a long time (WG item since May
  2012) and was discussed extensively (248 mails posted to the dhc
  list the last time I checked, with many more off-line and on the
  dhcpv6bis list). It was started as a spin-off from RFC7084 work
  (Basic requirements for IPv6 CE routers). This I-D went through
  three WGLCs. The first one (for -03) in Jan. 2013 failed due to
  lack of responses. The document went into hibernation for a while,
  and we had a second WGLC in Feb. 2014. Some feedback and support was
  received, but chairs decided that it's not sufficient for such an
  important I-D (it tweaks several major mechanisms in DHCPv6, so we
  felt that the bar is set higher than average). Finally, the third
  WGLC in Dec. 2014 passed. There was never any opposition to this
  draft. The challenge was to persuade people to express their support.

Document Quality

  This I-D clarifies and corrects several inconstencies in DHCPv6.
  The ambiguity in the RFC3315 and RFC3633 causes some interop
  problems. Several of the issues addressed were raised during
  interop events.

  This document is of high quality. It was extensively reviewed by
  matter experts that are involved in several independent
  implementations. This I-D is also considered an essential step in
  the 3315bis work, so it received further reviews and discussions in
  the dhcpv6bis team.

  There are partial implementations of this proposal, but all major
  vendors that participated are planning to implement this proposal.
  Many clarifications came out as a result of the interop testing.
  One could even say that many parts of this I-D are implemented for
  many years now. Prompt adoption upon publication is expected.

Personnel

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

  Tomek Mrugalski is the 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 thoroughly reviewed this document three times:
  http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dhcwg/current/msg16059.html (-09)
  http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dhcwg/current/msg13797.html (-03)
  http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dhcwg/current/msg12591.html (-00)

  I also participated in many discussions related to it (face to face,
  on dhc list, on dhcpv6bis, and off the list). I checked all changes
  since -09. This document is ready in my opinion and should be
  published.

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

  No. This document was thoroughly reviewed and it should be published.

(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 I-D is DHCPv6-centric, so DHC is the proper WG for this work.
  It was reviewed extensively. There is no need for any outside area
  review.

(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 have no such 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, all authors confirmed in writing. There are no IPRs, existing or
  outstanding.

(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?

  The consensus is pretty solid. This document is active in the DHC
  for quite a long time, so the support was expressed over multiple
  occasions. This draft is essentially a collection of small tweaks
  to the DHCPv6 protocol. It was a sort of judgment call to what to
  include in this draft and what to postpone to dhcpv6bis. There were
  infrequent suggestions to include more in stateful-issues, but
  the consensus is rather strong in this case.

(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.

(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 2 idnit comments and both are bogus. The first one is
  about the draft using pre-RFC5378 disclaimer. This draft uses parts
  of the RFC3315 that was published in 2003 (before 5378) and the
  I-D authors didn't manage to get approval of all original RFC
  authors, so the dislaimer is correct.

  Second issue reported is about a [17] reference in line 606. That
  is correct as well, as the whole section 4.4.5 is a replacement text
  for section 18.1.8 of RFC3315. [17] is a valid reference in RFC3315.

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

  No such review is 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. All normative references are to published RFCs only.

(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.

  No. There are no such references.

(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.

  Yes. This document will update RFC3315 and RFC3633. That is clearly
  stated on the front page and in the abstract. The nature of those
  changes is discussed in the Introduction.

(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. That is clearly
  stated in the IANA considerations section.

(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.

  There are no such registries defined.

(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 sections, so automated checks are not necessary.
Back