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 1 November 2019.
(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?
Proposed Standard (i.e., on the standards track).
(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 a new DHCPv4 option that a host can use to indicate to
the DHCPv4 server that it can operate in IPv6 only mode (via an appropriate
transition technology) and thus does not require an IPv4 address. The DHCPv4
server can therefore bypass allocating an IPv4 address.
Working Group Summary:
While the document was a product of the DHC WG, v6ops, and 6man, were also
involved in the initial discussion and refinement of the work. The document
progressed relatively quickly, though there were several issues debated during
its development.
Document Quality:
There was significant interest from both client and server software
implementers. While I am not aware of a prototype implementation, the result
does closely follow the behavior of many other DHCP actions.
Personnel:
Document Shepherd: Bernie Volz (DHC WG co-chair)
Responsible Area Director: Éric Vynck
(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 have reviewed every revision of the document and followed its development
to assure it addressed the issues and comments raised. I have reviewed the
final version of the document and feel it is ready.
(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of
the reviews that have been performed?
No. I think the document has had good review, both during its development as
during WGLC.
(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. As it is a product of the DHC WG, the option definition and DHCP
client and server behavior were reviewed by the WG and "DHCP experts".
(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 concerns or issues.
(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, each author has confirmed this via email to me.
(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If so,
summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures.
Not to my or the IETF knowledge at the present time (6/1/2020).
(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?
It presents strong consensus. The WG discussed and resolved the significant
areas of differences (mainly around whether the server MUST NOT, SHOULD NOT,
MAY NOT assign an address for the Offer) during the development of the document.
(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.)
Not to my knowledge.
(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.
None.
(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such
as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.
There are no formal reviews (IANA will do a DHCP Expert review of the requested
DHCP option, but it follows the normal DHCP option guidelines).
(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 are 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.
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.
Yes, it makes a modification to RFC 2563 and is reflected in the header -
"Updates: 2563" - and mentioned in Abstract and Introduction sections.
(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 8126).
The IANA section is correct and clear.
(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 registries requested.
(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, YANG modules, etc.
There were none as none is appropriate.
(20) If the document contains a YANG module, has the module been checked with
any of the recommended validation tools
(https://trac.ietf.org/trac/ops/wiki/yang-review-tools) for syntax and
formatting validation? If there are any resulting errors or warnings, what is
the justification for not fixing them at this time? Does the YANG module comply
with the Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA) as specified in
RFC8342?
There is no YANG model.