Shepherd writeup

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.

(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?


This document describes a mechanism for protecting hosts connected to 
a switched network against rogue DHCPv6 servers [RFC3315].  This 
mechanism is very similar to an established feature that is widely 
used in the IPv4 world - DHCP snooping.

BCP is indicated in the title 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

This document describes a mechanism for protecting hosts connected to 
a switched network against rogue DHCPv6 servers.  This mechanism is 
based on DHCPv6 packet-filtering at the layer-2 device at which the 
packets are received.  A similar mechanism has been widely deployed 
in IPv4 networks ('DHCP snooping'), and hence it is desirable that 
similar functionality be provided for IPv6 networks.

Working Group Summary

This document received a fair bit of in-depth review from key members 
of the WG. The WGLC concluded that this is useful information that is 
presented in an easy to read format. 

Document Quality

This document provides advice to IPv6 implementors for protecting 
hosts connected to a switched network against rogue DHCPv6 servers. 
There is a valid implementation of this functionality on Cisco 
equipment. Everyone who reviewed and commented on this document agrees 
that this is a significant security issue and that the mechanism that 
this draft provides is easy to use given its similarity to a similar 
feature (DHCP snooping) that has existed for IPv4 networks for a 


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

Kiran Kumar Chittimaneni is the Document Shepherd. Joel Jaeggli is the 
Area Director.

(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.

A WGLC was initiated, and then extended to get additional review from 
key WG members. The Shepherd believes that there is now sufficient 
review, both in terms of volume, and expertise.

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

The document is complete and ready for publication.

(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 need, we feel that the document was well reviewed.

(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.

The document is well written and there are no specific 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.


(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document?
If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR

No IPR disclosures have been filed.

(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 WG agreed that this is good work. We also got very detailed and 
specific feedback from various folks in the WG.

(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.) 


(11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this
document. (See and the Internet-Drafts
Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be

 == Outdated reference: A later version (-29) exists of draft-ietf-savi-dhcp-27

Our current thinking is that this is minor and can be updated after 
any IETF LC comments are received.

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


(13) Have all references within this document been identified as
either normative or informative?


(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?


(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. 


(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.


(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).

No IANA action requested or required. This matches the text of the document.

(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.


(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.

Only idnits tool.