Shepherd writeup
rfc7949-12

(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?

      An Internet Standard 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
    sections:

Technical Summary:

      This document specifies a mechanism to transport OSPFv3 packets over IPv4
      routing domain using the existing OSPFv3 Address Family extension. It
      simplifies transition from an OSPFv2 IPv4-only routing domain to an
      OSPFv3 dual-stack routing domain. It updates RFC 5838 to support virtual
      links in the IPv4 unicast address family when using OSPFv3 over IPv4.

Working Group Summary:

     This document brings in deployment benefit with little change to OSPFv3
     protocol and no impact to IPv4 transport. It received strong support
     for WG acceptance. There has not been any more comments since WGLC.

Document Quality:

      Most questions were raised and addressed during the I.D stage.
      Since then the draft is stable, without changes to the technical
      solution for more than six months. 

Personnel:

      Wenhu Lu 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.

     The document shepherd has reviewed each revision of the document
     and followed the discussion on the OSPF mailing list. 


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

      No.

(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.

      None.

(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.

(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 consensus from the WG that this document can progress. 

(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.

      Nits are all resolved. 

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

      Not applicable.

(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.

      The email discussion that leads to revision 05, 06, 07, 08 and 09:

On Fri, Jun 17, 2016 at 6:23 AM, Acee Lindem (acee) <acee@cisco.com> wrote:
Thanks Helen!

From: Helen Chen <ichen@kuatrotech.com>
Date: Friday, June 17, 2016 at 9:08 AM
To: Acee Lindem <acee@cisco.com>, Alexander Okonnikov <alexander.okonnikov@gmail.com>, Ran Atkinson <rja.lists@gmail.com>, Wenhu Lu <wenhu.lu@gmail.com>
Cc: "draft-ietf-ospf-transition-to-ospfv3@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-ospf-transition-to-ospfv3@ietf.org>
Subject: RE: Mail regarding draft-ietf-ospf-transition-to-ospfv3

Hi Acee,
 
Thanks for the quick responses.  I uploaded the change.
 
Name:                  draft-ietf-ospf-transition-to-ospfv3

Revision:              09

Title:                      OSPFv3 over IPv4 for IPv6 Transition

Document date:               2016-06-17

Group:                  ospf

Pages:                   10

URL:            https://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ospf-transition-to-ospfv3-09.txt

Status:         https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ospf-transition-to-ospfv3/

Htmlized:       https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ospf-transition-to-ospfv3-09

Diff:           https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-ospf-transition-to-ospfv3-09

 
Thanks,
Helen
 
From: Acee Lindem (acee) [mailto:acee@cisco.com] 
Sent: Friday, June 17, 2016 8:24 AM
To: Acee Lindem (acee) <acee@cisco.com>; Alexander Okonnikov <alexander.okonnikov@gmail.com>; Randal Atkinson <rja.lists@gmail.com>; Wenhu Lu <wenhu.lu@gmail.com>; Ing-Wher (Helen) Chen <ichen@kuatrotech.com>
Cc: draft-ietf-ospf-transition-to-ospfv3@ietf.org
Subject: Re: Mail regarding draft-ietf-ospf-transition-to-ospfv3
 
Hi Helen, 
 
Can we add the statement to the second paragraph:
 
    “When OSPFv3 adjacencies on different IPv4 subnets are supported, Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (BFD) [RFC 5881]) cannot be used for adjacency loss detection since BFD is restricted to a single subnet.” 
 
Thanks,
Acee
 
 
 
From: Acee Lindem <acee@cisco.com>
Date: Thursday, June 16, 2016 at 7:33 PM
To: Alexander Okonnikov <alexander.okonnikov@gmail.com>, Ran Atkinson <rja.lists@gmail.com>, Wenhu Lu <wenhu.lu@gmail.com>, Helen Chen <ichen@kuatrotech.com>
Cc: "draft-ietf-ospf-transition-to-ospfv3@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-ospf-transition-to-ospfv3@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: Mail regarding draft-ietf-ospf-transition-to-ospfv3
Resent-From: <alias-bounces@ietf.org>
Resent-To: Acee Lindem <acee@cisco.com>, Helen Chen <ichen@kuatrotech.com>, Ran Atkinson <rja.lists@gmail.com>
Resent-Date: Thursday, June 16, 2016 at 7:33 PM
 
 
 
From: Alexander Okonnikov <alexander.okonnikov@gmail.com>
Date: Thursday, June 16, 2016 at 7:12 PM
To: Ran Atkinson <rja.lists@gmail.com>, Wenhu Lu <wenhu.lu@gmail.com>, Helen Chen <ichen@kuatrotech.com>, Acee Lindem <acee@cisco.com>
Cc: "draft-ietf-ospf-transition-to-ospfv3@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-ospf-transition-to-ospfv3@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: Mail regarding draft-ietf-ospf-transition-to-ospfv3
Resent-From: <alias-bounces@ietf.org>
Resent-To: Acee Lindem <acee@cisco.com>, Helen Chen <ichen@kuatrotech.com>, Ran Atkinson <rja.lists@gmail.com>
Resent-Date: Thursday, June 16, 2016 at 7:12 PM
 
Is my understanding correct that section 3.1 implies: if two neighbors are in different subnets then BFD session might not be established (in case BFD implementation closely adhere RFC 5881)?
 
Actually, we could add a caveat that BFD cannot be used to the second paragraph since it is not supported across subnets. 
Thanks,
Acee
 


Thank you.
 

17 июня 2016 г., 1:55 +0300, Acee Lindem (acee) <acee@cisco.com>, писал:

Hi Alex,
 
Since we did not want to solve all these types of incompatibilities with IPv4, we have the same restriction for OSPFv3 over IPv4:
 
3.1.  Source Address
 
     For OSPFv3 over IPv4, the source address is the primary IPv4
     address for the interface over which the packet is transmitted.
     All OSPFv3 routers on the link SHOULD share the same IPv4 subnet
     for IPv4 transport to function correctly.
 
     While OSPFv2 operates on a subnet, OSPFv3 operates on a link
     [RFC5340].  Accordingly, an OSPFv3 router implementation MAY
     support adjacencies with OSPFv3 neighbors on different IPv4
     subnets.  If this is supported, the IPv4 data plane MUST resolve
     IPv4 addresses to layer-2 addresses using Address Resolution
     Protocol (ARP) on multi-access networks and point-to-point over LAN
     [RFC5309] for direct next-hops on different IPv4 subnets.
 
 
Thanks,
Acee 
From: Alexander Okonnikov <alexander.okonnikov@gmail.com>
Date: Thursday, June 16, 2016 at 6:49 PM
To: Ran Atkinson <rja.lists@gmail.com>, Wenhu Lu <wenhu.lu@gmail.com>, Helen Chen <ichen@kuatrotech.com>, Acee Lindem <acee@cisco.com>
Cc: "draft-ietf-ospf-transition-to-ospfv3@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-ospf-transition-to-ospfv3@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: Mail regarding draft-ietf-ospf-transition-to-ospfv3

 
Hello Acee,

I doubt about follow statement from RFC 5881:


6. Addressing Issues

...
On a multiaccess network, BFD Control packets MUST be transmitted
with source and destination addresses that are part of the subnet
(addressed from and to interfaces on the subnet).
...
 

17 июня 2016 г., 1:29 +0300, Acee Lindem (acee) <acee@cisco.com>, писал:

Hi Alex, 
If one is using IPv4 transport you’d presumably need to use IPv4 BFD so I know that this draft changes anything. Hence, you’d wouldn’t need any changes to RFC 5881. What am I missing?
Thanks,
Acee 
 
From: Alexander Okonnikov <alexander.okonnikov@gmail.com>
Date: Thursday, June 16, 2016 at 5:28 PM
To: Acee Lindem <acee@cisco.com>, Ran Atkinson <rja.lists@gmail.com>, Wenhu Lu <wenhu.lu@gmail.com>, Helen Chen <ichen@kuatrotech.com>
Cc: "draft-ietf-ospf-transition-to-ospfv3@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-ospf-transition-to-ospfv3@ietf.org>
Subject: RE: Mail regarding draft-ietf-ospf-transition-to-ospfv3

 
Hello all,

I have thought that as soon as OSPFv3 will be allowed to establish session with neighbor in different subnet, note about usage of BFD may need to be added. Currently RFC 5881 says that source and destination should be from the same subnet. I guess that it would be right to update RFC 5881 in this part (to relax this rule), but before it will happen (if any), it is better to clarify this point here.

Thank you.
 

25 мая 2016 г., 16:19 +0300, Ing-Wher (Helen) Chen <ichen@kuatrotech.com>, писал:

Actually, Acee is the thoughtful one.

Nonetheless, we thank you for your review.

Thanks,
Helen


-----Original Message-----
From: Alexander Okonnikov [mailto:alexander.okonnikov@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, May 24, 2016 4:39 PM
To: Ing-Wher (Helen) Chen <ichen@kuatrotech.com>; Acee Lindem (acee)
<acee@cisco.com>; Randal Atkinson <rja.lists@gmail.com>; Wenhu Lu
<wenhu.lu@gmail.com
Cc: draft-ietf-ospf-transition-to-ospfv3@ietf.org
Subject: Re: Mail regarding draft-ietf-ospf-transition-to-ospfv3

Thank you, Helen!

On Tue, May 24, 2016 at 7:02 AM, Ing-Wher (Helen) Chen <ichen@kuatrotech.com> wrote:
Here's the latest version of the draft, version -06, which includes a new acknowledgment section to thank Alexander for his comments.  Thanks Alexander!

Name:           draft-ietf-ospf-transition-to-ospfv3
Revision:       07
Title:          OSPFv3 over IPv4 for IPv6 Transition
Document date:  2016-05-24
Group:          ospf
Pages:          10
URL:            https://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ospf-transition-to-ospfv3-07.txt
Status:         https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ospf-transition-to-ospfv3/
Htmlized:       https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ospf-transition-to-ospfv3-07
Diff:           https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-ospf-transition-to-ospfv3-07

Thanks,
Helen

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ing-Wher (Helen) Chen [mailto:ichen@kuatrotech.com]
> Sent: Monday, May 23, 2016 11:38 AM
> To: Acee Lindem (acee) <acee@cisco.com>; Randal Atkinson
> <rja.lists@gmail.com>
> Cc: Alexander Okonnikov <alexander.okonnikov@gmail.com>; draft-ietf-
> ospf-transition-to-ospfv3@ietf.org
> Subject: RE: Mail regarding draft-ietf-ospf-transition-to-ospfv3
>
> I made the suggested changes, including Ran's edit, to Section 3.1 and
> submitted a new revision.  The correct new version is -06 (please ignore
> version -05), and the diff between -04 and -06 is here:
>
> <http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url1=https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-
> ietf-ospf-transition-to-ospfv3-04.txt&url2=https://www.ietf.org/id/draft-
> ietf-ospf-transition-to-ospfv3-06.txt>
>
> Name:         draft-ietf-ospf-transition-to-ospfv3
> Revision:     06
> Title:                OSPFv3 over IPv4 for IPv6 Transition
> Document date:        2016-05-23
> Group:                ospf
> Pages:                10
> URL:            https://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ospf-transition-
> to-ospfv3-06.txt
> Status:         https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ospf-transition-to-
> ospfv3/
> Htmlized:       https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ospf-transition-to-ospfv3-
> 06
> Diff:           https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-ospf-transition-to-
> ospfv3-06
>
> Thanks,
> Helen
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Acee Lindem (acee) [mailto:acee@cisco.com]
> > Sent: Sunday, May 22, 2016 4:41 PM
> > To: Randal Atkinson <rja.lists@gmail.com>
> > Cc: Ing-Wher (Helen) Chen <ichen@kuatrotech.com>; Alexander
> Okonnikov
> > <alexander.okonnikov@gmail.com>; draft-ietf-ospf-transition-to-
> > ospfv3@ietf.org
> > Subject: Re: Mail regarding draft-ietf-ospf-transition-to-ospfv3
> >
> > Hi Ran,
> > Sounds good to me.
> > Thanks,
> > Acee
> >
> > On 5/22/16, 2:51 PM, "Randal Atkinson" <rja.lists@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >> On 19May2016, at 12:49, Acee Lindem (acee) <acee@cisco.com>
> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> Hi Helen,
> > >>
> > >> I agree. Though I missed the context to Alex’s comment in my reply,
> > >> I actually meant to add rather than replace as you are proposing.
> > >>
> > >> Thanks,
> > >> Acee
> > >>
> > >> On 5/19/16, 11:25 AM, "Ing-Wher (Helen) Chen"
> > <ichen@kuatrotech.com>
> > >>wrote:
> > >>
> > >>> How about the following text for Section 3.1, in its entirety?  (I
> > >>>think  it's  important to emphasize the normal case.)
> > >>>
> > >>> <begin Section 3.1>
> > >>>
> > >>> For OSPFv3 over IPv4, the source address is the primary IPv4
> > >>> address for the interface over which the packet is transmitted.
> > >>> All OSPFv3 routers on the link SHOULD share the same IPv4 subnet
> > >>> for
> > >>> IPv4 transport to function correctly.
> > >>>
> > >>> An OSPFv3 router implementation MAY support adjacencies with
> > >>> neighbors on different IPv4 subnets since OSPFv3 runs on a link
> > >>> rather than on a subnet [RFC5340]. If this is supported, the IPv4
> > >>> data plane MUST resolve the layer-2 address using ARP on
> > >>> multi-access networks and point-to-point over LAN [RFC5309] for
> > >>> direct next-hops in different subnets.
> > >>>
> > >>> <end Section 3.1>
> > >
> > >All,
> > >
> > >I agree with the principle, but I’d like to suggest a clarifying edit
> > >to the 2nd paragraph above:
> > >
> > >[begin candidate new text for 2nd paragraph above]
> > >
> > >“While OSPFv2 operates on a subnet, OSPFv3 operates on a link [RFC-
> 5340].
> > >Accordingly, an OSPFv3 router implementation MAY support adjacencies
> > >with OSPFv3 neighbors on different IPv4 subnets.  If this is
> > >supported, the
> > >IPv4 data plane MUST resolve the layer-2 address using ARP on
> > >multi-access networks and point-to-point over LAN [RFC 5309] for
> > >direct next-hops on different IPv4 subnets.”
> > >
> > >[end candidate new text for 2nd paragraph above]
> > >
> > >Yours,
> > >
> > >Ran
> > >
> > >


(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).
  
     Not applicable.

(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.

      None.

(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.
 
      Not applicable.

Back