Customizing DHCP Configuration on the Basis of Network Topology
draft-ietf-dhc-topo-conf-09

Write up for draft-ietf-dhc-topo-conf(-07).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?

Informational. This is the proper type because this document does not
specify a standard, but tries to provide information about how DHCP
servers typically select the network to which a client a attached and
other context specific information.


(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 specifies information that is useful to those newer to
DHCP servers and some of the features they support beyond the DHCP base
specifications.


Working Group Summary:

This document help guide administrators in configurating DHCP servers.

Document Quality:

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.


Personnel:

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?

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.

No.


(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 I have confirmed with co-authors.


(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?

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
    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 none.


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

N/A


(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.


(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.


(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.

No.


(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).

There are no IANA actions required.


(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 new IANA registries requested by this draft.


(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.

(Via drafts-lastcall-comment@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

IANA has reviewed draft-ietf-dhc-topo-conf-08.txt, which is currently in Last Call, and has the following comments:

We understand that this document doesn't require any IANA actions.

While it's often helpful for a document's IANA Considerations section to remain in place upon publication even if there are no actions, if the authors strongly prefer to remove it, IANA does not object.

If this assessment is not accurate, please respond as soon as possible.

Thank you,

Sabrina Tanamal
IANA Specialist
ICANN

The following Last Call announcement was sent out:

From: The IESG
To: "IETF-Announce"
CC: dhc-chairs@ietf.org, volz@cisco.com, suresh.krishnan@ericsson.com, dhcwg@ietf.org, draft-ietf-dhc-topo-conf@ietf.org
Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org
Sender:
Subject: Last Call:  (Customizing DHCP Configuration on the Basis of Network Topology) to Informational RFC


The IESG has received a request from the Dynamic Host Configuration WG
(dhc) to consider the following document:
- 'Customizing DHCP Configuration on the Basis of Network Topology'
  as Informational RFC

The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the
ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2016-05-23. Exceptionally, comments may be
sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the
beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting.

Abstract


  DHCP servers have evolved over the years to provide significant
  functionality beyond that which is described in the DHCP base
  specifications.  One aspect of this functionality is support for
  context-specific configuration information.  This memo describes some
  such features and explains their operation.




The file can be obtained via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dhc-topo-conf/

IESG discussion can be tracked via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dhc-topo-conf/ballot/


No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D.

Write up for draft-ietf-dhc-topo-conf(-07).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?

Informational. This is the proper type because this document does not
specify a standard, but tries to provide information about how DHCP
servers typically select the network to which a client a attached and
other context specific information.


(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 specifies information that is useful to those newer to
DHCP servers and some of the features they support beyond the DHCP base
specifications.


Working Group Summary:

This document help guide administrators in configurating DHCP servers.

Document Quality:

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.


Personnel:

Bernie Volz is the document shepherd. Brian Haberman 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?

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.

No.


(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 I have confirmed with co-authors.


(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?

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
    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 none.


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

N/A


(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.


(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.


(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.

No.


(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).

There are no IANA actions required.


(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 new IANA registries requested by this draft.


(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.

This message starts the DHC working group last call to advance "Customizing DHCP Configuration on the Basis of Network Topology”, draft-ietf-dhc-topo-conf-05, document as an Informational RFC. The authors believe that this version is ready. We did a WGLC for the 03 draft in October 2014, which raised some issues and resulted in the updates. At that time, we felt the document did not pass WGLC.

The draft is available here:
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-dhc-topo-conf-05

Please send your comments by July 29th, 2015. If you do not feel this document should advance, please state your reasons why.

There are no IPR claims reported at this time.

Bernie Volz is the assigned shepherd for this document.