(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?
The requested publication status is Proposed Standard. This
document is a revision of the DHCPv6 specification, and incorporates
text from RFC3633, RFC3736, RFC4242, RFC7083, and RFC7550, all of
which are part of the core specification of DHCPv6. While the
original intent of the dhc WG in producing this document was to
publish rfc3315bis as Internet Standard, there are some minor
protocol changes from previous RFCs in rfc3315bis, and no
implementation experience with the protocol as specified in
rfc3315bis.
The title page header show "Standards Track" as the intended
status.
(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 describes the Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol for
IPv6 (DHCPv6). It updates the text from RFC3315, the original
DHCPv6 specification, and incorporates prefix delegation (RFC3633),
stateless DHCPv6 (RFC3736), an option to specify an upper bound for
how long a client should wait before refreshing information
(RFC4242), a mechanism for throttling DHCPv6 clients when DHCPv6
service is not available (RFC7083), and clarifies the interactions
between modes of operation (RFC7550). As such, this document
obsoletes RFC3315, RFC3633, RFC3736, RFC4242, RFC7083, and RFC7550.
Working Group Summary:
The dhc WG undertook the development of rfc3315bis to move
DHCPv6/RFC3315 to Internet Standard. The process was scoped to do
minimal updates to RFC 3315 and incorporate a few core followup RFCs
into rfc3315bis for publication as an Internet Standard. The bulk
of the work on rfc3315bis was done be a design team, with frequent
reports back to the full dhc WG.
Because there are some minor protocol changes from previous RFCs in
rfc3315bis, and no implementation experience with the protocol as
specified in rfc3315bis, the dhc Working Group requests that
rfc3315bis be published as Proposed Standard.
There were no points or decisions about rfc3315bis that caused
controversy or for which consensus was determined to be particularly
rough. The origin documents, RFC 3315 et al., were sufficiently
well-written and have sufficient implementation and deployment
experience to minimize the discussion about rfc3315bis.
Document Quality:
Section 1 summarizes the relationship of rfc3315bis to several RFCs
that define the current DHCPv6 specification. Appendix A of
rfc3315bis lists the changes in the DHCPv6 specification relative to
RFC 3315.
rfc3315bis has received significant review by the dhc Working Group
in two Working Group last calls. Summaries of the issues raised
during the last calls is available at:
https://github.com/dhcwg/rfc3315bis/blob/master/wglc-issues-draft-ietf-dhc-rfc3315bis-05.pdfhttps://github.com/dhcwg/rfc3315bis/blob/master/3315bis%20WGLC%20(draft-ietf-dhc-rfc3315bis-08)%20-%20June%202017%20-%20Sheet1.pdf
The Acknowledgments section cites individuals who contributed
thorough and helpful reviews.
There are no implementations of DHCPv6 that include the changes to
the protocol specified in rfc3315bis. There are, of course, many
implementations of DHCPv6 based on RFC 3315 and subsequent RFCs.
rfc3315bis incorporates updates to the DHCPv6 specification based on
interop tests among several DHCPv6 implementations. At least four
vendors are interested in updating their implementations: Cisco,
Huawei, ISC and Nominum.
Personnel:
Who is the Document Shepherd? Who is the Responsible Area Director?
Document Shepherd: Ralph Droms, rdroms.ietf@gmail.com
Area Director: Suresh Krishnan, suresh@kaloom.com
(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.
The Document Shepherd has read the entire rfc3315bis document. 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 concerns. rfc3315bis has gone through multiple dhc WG last
calls. There were sufficient detailed reviews in the first dhc WG
last call to warrant a subsequent last call after the issues from
the initial last call were resolved.
(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.
There are no sections of the document that require more detailed
review. Security and privacy issues were considered in detail by
the Working Group during the work on rfc3315bis. The consensus of
the Working Group regarding security and privacy is reflected in
rfc3315bis.
(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?
All authors have replied that no IPR disclosures are required,
to their knowledge.
(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If
so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR
disclosures.
No 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 broad consensus in the dhc working group to publish this
document. There was significant response to the initial working
group last call. While there was less discussion of subsequent
working group last calls, the bulk of the revisions to the document
were a result of the extensive discussion following the initial last
call.
(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.)
The Document Shepherd is not aware of any expected appeals or of any
extreme reservations regarding publication of rfc3315bis.
(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 is a disclaimer for pre-RFC5378 work because rfc3315bis
contains significant text from RFC 3315.
There are two references to obsoleted documents that should be
updated. These references (and, potentially, references to other
newly obsoleted documents) can be updated in the next revision or
during the RFC Editor process.
(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review
criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.
No formal review 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?
The references are all in order (with the two exceptions as noted
above).
(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 downward normative 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.
This document will obsolete several RFCs whose contents will either
be updated or included in this document.
(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).
rfc3315bis does not define any new IANA registries. It does request
changes to some existing IANA registries to recognize the
publication of rfc3315bis and to mark the deprecated "DHCPv6 Delayed
Authentication" as obsolete.
(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.
rfc3315bis does not create any new registries. It does update some
existing 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.
No reviews or automated checks were necessary.