(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
A Standards Track RFC is being requested and 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
This document specifies auto-configuration of OSPFv3 routers in
certain environments that require auto-configuration, such as in a
small IPv6 network like a home network. To facilitate
auto-configuration, this document specifies the default
configuration, allows more flexibility in some verifications
required by the OSPFv3 specification, and also describes a
possible collision as well as the mechanism to resolve the
Working Group Summary:
The OSPFv3 router ID collision detection and resolution was a
heated point of discussion a few months ago, but the issue has
been resolved by IETF 89. The technical aspect of the document,
both within the document and mailing list discussions, have been
stable for the last six months.
This document has been a WG document for a little under two years.
It is stable, without changes to the technical solution for more
than six months. There are also two implementations based on this
document already. There is potentially a third implementation
which implements parts of this draft.
Helen Chen is the Document Shepherd.
Alia Atlas is the Responsible 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.
This draft describes the mechanism for auto-configuration of
OSPFv3 routers in a home network environment. There is healthy
participation, discussion, and review by both the OSPF WG and the
homenet WG, including two complete implementations as well as a
third implementation that partially implements this draft.
There are no outstanding issues with this draft.
(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or
breadth of the reviews that have been performed?
(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.
(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.
(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
(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 strong consensus from the WG, with a core group of WG
participants agreeing with the solution and another group of more
invested participants involved in long discussions that converged.
(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
(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.
Authors have resolved all nits.
(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).
This document defines a new type of OSPFv3 LSA, which requires
assignment of a number from the existing "OSPFv3 LSA Function
Code" registry. This document also defines a new registry for the
TLVs of this new OSPFv3 LSA. The IANA Considerations section
correctly identifies the required registrations.
(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.
A new registry for OSPFv3 Auto-Configuration (AC) LSA TLVs is
required. No Expert Review is necessary when allocating new
values, as new values can be allocated via IETF Consensus or IESG
(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.