Deprecation of Type 0 Routing Headers in IPv6
draft-ietf-ipv6-deprecate-rh0-01

[Ballot comment]
From Gen-ART Review by Elwyn Davies.

  Section 3: "IPv6 nodes **MUST NOT process** RH0 in packets whose
  destination address in the IPv6 header is an address assigned to them.
  Such packets...":  The rest of the section then goes on to describe
  just how the node processes the header!  I think it should say
  something like: "An IPv6 node that receives a packet with a
  destination address assigned to it and containing an RH0 extension
  header MUST NOT execute the algorithm specified in the latter part
  of Section 4.4 of [RFC2460] for RH0. Instead such packets..."

  Section 4.2, 1st paragraph: The abbreviation RH is not defined
  (only RH0) so s/type-2 RH/type 2 Routing Header/

IANA Last Call comments:

IESG:

The IANA has reviewed the following Internet-Draft which is in Last
Call:  draft-ietf-ipv6-deprecate-rh0-01.txt, and has the following
comments regarding the publication of this document:

Upon approval of this document, the IANA will make the following
changes in "Internet Protocol Version 6 (IPv6) Parameters " registry located at

http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv6-parameters
sub-registry "5.c. Routing Types"

OLD:

0 - Source Route [IPV6]

NEW:

0 - Source Route (deprecated)
[IPV6,RFC-ipv6-deprecate-rh0-01]

We understand the above to be the only IANA Action for this
document.

Thank you.

Amanda Baber
(on behalf of IANA)

No issues found in AD review. However, we need to think about whether the criticism of this action (while still within the "rough" part of consensus) causes us to revisit some of the content of the document. On the other hand, several people have made it clear that softening of the content would lead to losing their support for the document.

I'll note in addition that fairly strong opinions
one way or the other have been presented during the
discussion. So lets be alert for further opinions, IETF
Last Call comments, etc. I have also a request from
Marla asking whether feedback from NANOG list
could be provided.

(1.a) Who is the Document Shepherd for this document? Has the Document Shepherd
personally reviewed this version of the document and, in particular,
does he or she believe this version is ready for forwarding to the IESG
for publication?

- The document shepherd is Bob Hinden.

- Yes, he believes this document is ready for publication.

(1.b) Has the document had adequate review both from key WG members and
from key non-WG members? Does the Document Shepherd have any concerns
about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed?

- The document has been reviewed by many members of the IPv6 WG.  The
document shepherd has no concerns over the reviews performed.

(1.c) Does the Document Shepherd have concerns that the
document needs more review from a particular or broader perspective,
e.g., security, operational complexity, someone familiar with AAA,
internationalization or XML?

- No.

(1.d) Does the Document Shepherd have any specific concerns or issues
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. Has an IPR disclosure related to this document been filed?
If so, please include a reference to the disclosure and summarize the WG
discussion and conclusion on this issue.

- The document shepherd has no specific concerns about this document.

(1.e) 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 document shepherd performed two separate consensus calls on the
document.  Each one indicates a strong consensus on the content.

(1.f) 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 entered into the ID
Tracker.)

- No one has threatened an appeal over this document.

(1.g) Has the Document Shepherd personally verified that the document
satisfies all ID nits? (See http://www.ietf.org/ID-Checklist.html and
http://tools.ietf.org/tools/idnits/). Boilerplate checks are not enough;
this check needs to be thorough. Has the document met all formal review
criteria it needs to, such as the MIB Doctor, media type and URI type
reviews?

- This document currently shows one I-D nits error due to a normative
reference to the IPv6 Node Requirements RFC (RFC 4294).  The chairs
believe this is an acceptable downref due to the relationship between
the content of this document and the requirements described in 4294.
Also, this issues has been raised with the AD.

(1.h) Has the document split its references into normative and
informative? 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 strategy for their completion?
Are there normative references that are downward references, as
described in [RFC3967]? If so, list these downward references to support
the Area Director in the Last Call procedure for them [RFC3967].

- As noted above, there is a downref to RFC 4294.

(1.i) Has the Document Shepherd verified that the document IANA consideration
section exists and is consistent with the body of the document? If the
document specifies protocol extensions, are reservations requested in
appropriate IANA registries? Are the IANA registries clearly identified?
If the document creates a new registry, does it define the proposed
initial contents of the registry and an allocation procedure for future
registrations? Does it suggest a reasonable name for the new registry?
See [RFC2434]. If the document describes an Expert Review process has
Shepherd conferred with the Responsible Area Director so that the IESG
can appoint the needed Expert during the IESG Evaluation?

- The IANA Considerations section is consistent with the body of the
document.

(1.j) Has the Document Shepherd verified that sections of the document
that are written in a formal language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB
definitions, etc., validate correctly in an automated checker?

- N/A

(1.k) 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
-----------------

  The functionality provided by IPv6's Type 0 Routing Header can be
  exploited in order to achieve traffic amplification over a remote
  path for the purposes of generating denial-of-service traffic.  This
  document updates the IPv6 specification to deprecate the use of the IPv6
  Type 0 Routing Header, in light of this security concern.

Working Group Summary
---------------------

  This document is a product of the IPv6 WG and has been thoroughly
  reviewed by its members.

Document Quality
----------------

  Several IPv6 implementations have already implemented and tested the
  protocol change described in this document.  Extensive reviews and
  comments were provided by Arnaud Ebalard, Tim Enos, Jun-ichiro itojun
  Hagino, Thomas Narten, Jinmei Tatuya, David Malone, Jeroen Massar, Dave
  Thaler, and Gilulaume Valadon.