Extending an IPv6 /64 Prefix from a Third Generation Partnership Project (3GPP) Mobile Interface to a LAN Link
draft-ietf-v6ops-64share-10
Revision differences
Document history
Date | Rev. | By | Action |
---|---|---|---|
2014-06-25
|
10 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to AUTH48-DONE from AUTH48 |
2014-06-09
|
10 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to AUTH48 from RFC-EDITOR |
2014-06-02
|
10 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to RFC-EDITOR from EDIT |
2014-05-19
|
10 | Fred Baker | Document shepherd changed to Fred Baker |
2014-04-07
|
10 | Amy Vezza | IESG state changed to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent |
2014-04-07
|
10 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to EDIT |
2014-04-07
|
10 | (System) | Announcement was received by RFC Editor |
2014-04-03
|
10 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to No IC from In Progress |
2014-04-03
|
10 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to In Progress |
2014-04-03
|
10 | Cindy Morgan | IESG state changed to Approved-announcement sent from Approved-announcement to be sent |
2014-04-03
|
10 | Cindy Morgan | IESG has approved the document |
2014-04-03
|
10 | Cindy Morgan | Closed "Approve" ballot |
2014-04-03
|
10 | Cindy Morgan | Ballot approval text was generated |
2014-04-02
|
10 | Joel Jaeggli | addressed teds discuss with rev 10 we should be clear. |
2014-04-02
|
10 | Joel Jaeggli | IESG state changed to Approved-announcement to be sent from IESG Evaluation::AD Followup |
2014-04-02
|
10 | Joel Jaeggli | Removed from agenda for telechat |
2014-04-02
|
10 | Fred Baker | Changed consensus to Yes from Unknown |
2014-04-01
|
10 | Ted Lemon | [Ballot comment] The new version of the draft addresses my DISCUSS, so I'm clearing. Thanks for the update! Former DISCUSS: This relates to Benoit's comment. … [Ballot comment] The new version of the draft addresses my DISCUSS, so I'm clearing. Thanks for the update! Former DISCUSS: This relates to Benoit's comment. I think the reason Benoit is confused is that this document doesn't clearly specify its scope, and if I am correct this should be easy to fix. As it is currently written, the document can be read in two different ways. The first way, which I _think_ is what is intended, is that the 3GPP node sets up a Wifi LAN of its own, with its own SSID, and manages that link as the sole router. The second way it can be read is that the 3GPP node joins an existing WiFi LAN and starts advertising a prefix on it. Both scenarios are useful, but the second one is harder to specify, and the current document is inadequate to the task, as Benoit has observed. But if I am right that the first scenario is the only one that this document intends to support, I think the document is fine as is. So the easy way to address this DISCUSS is to add a scoping statement in the introduction: OLD: 3GPP mobile cellular networks such as GSM, UMTS, and LTE have architectural support for IPv6 [RFC6459] , but only 3GPP Release-10 and onwards of the 3GPP specification supports DHCPv6 Prefix Delegation [RFC3633] for delegating IPv6 prefixes to a single LAN link. To facilitate the use of IPv6 in a LAN prior to the deployment of DHCPv6 Prefix Delegation in 3GPP networks and in User Equipment (UE), this document describes requirements and provides examples on how the 3GPP UE radio interface assigned global /64 prefix may be extended from the 3GPP radio interface to a LAN link. NEW: 3GPP mobile cellular networks such as GSM, UMTS, and LTE have architectural support for IPv6 [RFC6459] , but only 3GPP Release-10 and onwards of the 3GPP specification supports DHCPv6 Prefix Delegation [RFC3633] for delegating IPv6 prefixes to a single LAN link. To facilitate the use of IPv6 in a LAN prior to the deployment of DHCPv6 Prefix Delegation in 3GPP networks and in User Equipment (UE), this document describes requirements and provides examples on how the 3GPP UE radio interface assigned global /64 prefix may be extended from the 3GPP radio interface to a LAN link. There are two scenarios where this might be done. The first is where the 3GPP node sets up and manages its own LAN (e.g., an IEEE 802.11 SSID) and provides single-homed service to hosts that connect to this LAN. A second scenario is where the 3GPP node connects to an existing LAN and acts as a router in order to provide redundant or multi-homed IPv6 service. This document is intended to address the first scenario, and is not applicable to the second scenario, because the operational complexities of the second scenario are not addressed. Or something like that. Anyway, assuming that I'm correct in understanding where this document is intended to be used, I think a quick update will resolve this DISCUSS. If the document is intended to cover the second scenario, it's not ready for publication and will require substantial additional work, for the reasons Benoit has already stated. |
2014-04-01
|
10 | Ted Lemon | [Ballot Position Update] Position for Ted Lemon has been changed to Yes from Discuss |
2014-04-01
|
10 | (System) | Sub state has been changed to AD Followup from Revised ID Needed |
2014-04-01
|
10 | Vizdal Ales | IANA Review state changed to Version Changed - Review Needed from IANA OK - No Actions Needed |
2014-04-01
|
10 | Vizdal Ales | New version available: draft-ietf-v6ops-64share-10.txt |
2014-03-30
|
09 | Joel Jaeggli | Telechat date has been changed to 2014-04-10 from 2014-03-27 |
2014-03-27
|
09 | Cindy Morgan | IESG state changed to IESG Evaluation::Revised I-D Needed from IESG Evaluation |
2014-03-27
|
09 | Ted Lemon | [Ballot discuss] This relates to Benoit's comment. I think the reason Benoit is confused is that this document doesn't clearly specify its scope, and if … [Ballot discuss] This relates to Benoit's comment. I think the reason Benoit is confused is that this document doesn't clearly specify its scope, and if I am correct this should be easy to fix. As it is currently written, the document can be read in two different ways. The first way, which I _think_ is what is intended, is that the 3GPP node sets up a Wifi LAN of its own, with its own SSID, and manages that link as the sole router. The second way it can be read is that the 3GPP node joins an existing WiFi LAN and starts advertising a prefix on it. Both scenarios are useful, but the second one is harder to specify, and the current document is inadequate to the task, as Benoit has observed. But if I am right that the first scenario is the only one that this document intends to support, I think the document is fine as is. So the easy way to address this DISCUSS is to add a scoping statement in the introduction: OLD: 3GPP mobile cellular networks such as GSM, UMTS, and LTE have architectural support for IPv6 [RFC6459] , but only 3GPP Release-10 and onwards of the 3GPP specification supports DHCPv6 Prefix Delegation [RFC3633] for delegating IPv6 prefixes to a single LAN link. To facilitate the use of IPv6 in a LAN prior to the deployment of DHCPv6 Prefix Delegation in 3GPP networks and in User Equipment (UE), this document describes requirements and provides examples on how the 3GPP UE radio interface assigned global /64 prefix may be extended from the 3GPP radio interface to a LAN link. NEW: 3GPP mobile cellular networks such as GSM, UMTS, and LTE have architectural support for IPv6 [RFC6459] , but only 3GPP Release-10 and onwards of the 3GPP specification supports DHCPv6 Prefix Delegation [RFC3633] for delegating IPv6 prefixes to a single LAN link. To facilitate the use of IPv6 in a LAN prior to the deployment of DHCPv6 Prefix Delegation in 3GPP networks and in User Equipment (UE), this document describes requirements and provides examples on how the 3GPP UE radio interface assigned global /64 prefix may be extended from the 3GPP radio interface to a LAN link. There are two scenarios where this might be done. The first is where the 3GPP node sets up and manages its own LAN (e.g., an IEEE 802.11 SSID) and provides single-homed service to hosts that connect to this LAN. A second scenario is where the 3GPP node connects to an existing LAN and acts as a router in order to provide redundant or multi-homed IPv6 service. This document is intended to address the first scenario, and is not applicable to the second scenario, because the operational complexities of the second scenario are not addressed. Or something like that. Anyway, assuming that I'm correct in understanding where this document is intended to be used, I think a quick update will resolve this DISCUSS. If the document is intended to cover the second scenario, it's not ready for publication and will require substantial additional work, for the reasons Benoit has already stated. |
2014-03-27
|
09 | Ted Lemon | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded for Ted Lemon |
2014-03-27
|
09 | Jari Arkko | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Jari Arkko |
2014-03-27
|
09 | Benoît Claise | [Ballot comment] - Note sure if this is a real problem or not I would like to speak with Joel and/or Ted. Maybe I overlooked … [Ballot comment] - Note sure if this is a real problem or not I would like to speak with Joel and/or Ted. Maybe I overlooked something? draft-ietf-v6ops-64share-09 is only about LAN, and not wireless LAN, right? or LAN is used generically? I guess that with wireless LAN, the hosts might end up with MIF problems (RFC 6418). What if I introduce an UE 3GPP in my home, and this UE does wireless by default. Let's pretend that there is no authentication, and that the signal is stronger than my home WIFI, and that my hosts connect automatically to the UE's preferred signal, shall I now send all my traffic via 3GPP (and pay a lot)? Granted: a lot of IF in that statement, but could this mechanism be used to automatically attract all traffic to 3GPP? I'd like to remain in control of where my traffic goes. Background info, from the MIF charter: 6. The MIF working group will document either as part of the MIF API specification, as part of the MIF architecture document, or in a separate document, the issues and requirements for a high-level MIF user interface that would allow the user to exert control over how individual applications or application roles make use of different provisioning domains and network interfaces. Was it discussed in the WG? Or it's not different that IPv4 or - I like this formulation, which could be reused in the different documents. The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119]. NOTE WELL: This document is not a standard, and conformance with it is not required in order to claim conformance with IETF standards for IPv6. This document uses the normative keywords only for precision. Thanks. - Below is Victor's OPS DIR review. I don't think I've seen a reply to this. [OPS-DIR Suggestion] One of the key criteria in RFC5706 is to deal with co-existence. Therefore the document authors may want to add some addition text which discusses the UE (with code enabling this solution) behaviour if a Release-10 compliant gateway is present and an IPv6 prefix is supplied. In such a case, the initialization behaviours should include a check if a prefix (i.e. >64 like a /56) is received. Should that occur, the /64 share is not needed. This would cover the co-existence case where a UE may connect to multiple 3GPP networks (or a single one) where some gateways have Release10 functionality and some don’t. Additionally, perhaps a reference to the appropriate 3GPP document which outlines the UE IP attachment procedures can be made. This may help implements understood the full upstream network characteristics and UE detailed behaviour. Suggestion is reference to 3GPP Specification 29.061 (Section 11.2.1.3.2). Other then these two minor points, the document appears to be of quality meets the OPS-DIR requirements. [RFC5706 - Appendix A] [A.3] Operations Impact Feedback: The operational impact of enabling this function can cause broken IPv6 connectivity. The document addresses this issue by stating that there must be tight coupling of 3GPP radio internet state with the IPv6 enabled LAN (on the same UE). The enablement of the functions laid out in this document is consider beneficial to IPv6 deployment, and has a beneficial impact to cellular networks. [A.1] Operational Considerations Operational considerations are discussed and covered in detail within the document. Coexistence and backward compatibility is disused, and one recommendation was made to help improve the text in this regard. Fault condition are discussed and corresponding behaviour outlined. (i.e. tracking of RADIO interface). [A.2] Management Considerations Management of the UE is not inherently discussed, but that would be covered in normal 3GPP procedures. Configuration management is not discussed, but is also not relent and the procedures and conditions outline are dynamic in nature based on information received from the network. |
2014-03-27
|
09 | Benoît Claise | Ballot comment text updated for Benoit Claise |
2014-03-27
|
09 | Benoît Claise | [Ballot comment] - Note sure if this is a real problem or not I would like to speak with Joel and/or Ted. Maybe I overlooked … [Ballot comment] - Note sure if this is a real problem or not I would like to speak with Joel and/or Ted. Maybe I overlooked something? draft-ietf-v6ops-64share-09 is only about LAN, and not wireless LAN, right? or LAN is used generically? I guess that with wireless LAN, the hosts might end up with MIF problems (RFC 6418). What if I introduce an UE 3GPP in my home, and this UE does wireless by default. Let's pretend that there is no authentication, and that the signal is stronger than my home WIFI, and that my hosts connect automatically to the UE's preferred signal, shall I now send all my traffic via 3GPP (and pay a lot)? Granted: a lot of IF in that statement, but could this mechanism be used to automatically attract all traffic to 3GPP? I'd like to remain in control of where my traffic goes. Background info, from the MIF charter: 6. The MIF working group will document either as part of the MIF API specification, as part of the MIF architecture document, or in a separate document, the issues and requirements for a high-level MIF user interface that would allow the user to exert control over how individual applications or application roles make use of different provisioning domains and network interfaces. Was it discussed in the WG? - I like this formulation, which could be reused in the different documents. The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119]. NOTE WELL: This document is not a standard, and conformance with it is not required in order to claim conformance with IETF standards for IPv6. This document uses the normative keywords only for precision. Thanks. |
2014-03-27
|
09 | Benoît Claise | Ballot comment text updated for Benoit Claise |
2014-03-26
|
09 | Pete Resnick | [Ballot comment] A question for the shepherd. In the writeup, you say: (1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard, … [Ballot comment] A question for the shepherd. In the writeup, you say: (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? The draft is intended to be at, and requests, Informational status. Which of course doesn't answer the second question. This looks like protocol to me. Or maybe at least BCPish stuff. The fact that it's Informational probably means that it didn't get a lot of cross area review. (Heck, in the IESG, we don't even require more than the responsible AD to read Informational documents for them to pass.) So could you explain why this was sent up as Informational? |
2014-03-26
|
09 | Pete Resnick | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Pete Resnick |
2014-03-26
|
09 | Kathleen Moriarty | [Ballot comment] I support Stephen's position |
2014-03-26
|
09 | Kathleen Moriarty | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Kathleen Moriarty |
2014-03-26
|
09 | Richard Barnes | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Richard Barnes |
2014-03-26
|
09 | Alia Atlas | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Alia Atlas |
2014-03-24
|
09 | Spencer Dawkins | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Spencer Dawkins |
2014-03-24
|
09 | Brian Haberman | [Ballot comment] I am curious as to whether there was any discussion on how the UE may use RFC 4291 addresses out of the /64. … [Ballot comment] I am curious as to whether there was any discussion on how the UE may use RFC 4291 addresses out of the /64. Is there any expectations that UE vendors would want to do such a thing? If so, is it worth documenting that as a third example? |
2014-03-24
|
09 | Brian Haberman | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Brian Haberman |
2014-03-24
|
09 | Stephen Farrell | [Ballot comment] - section 3, R-2: "MUST be tightly coupled" isn't clear to me. Would it be clear to implementers? - 4.1: does gateway here … [Ballot comment] - section 3, R-2: "MUST be tightly coupled" isn't clear to me. Would it be clear to implementers? - 4.1: does gateway here always only mean GGSN from 6459? 6459 mentions other gateways so I'm not sure. Nor am I sure if it matters, but no harm saying, if you can. - The secdir review [1] suggests making 6092 a SHOULD implement and calling out the potential privacy issue of sharing addresses as described. Those seem like good changes to make to me, and the authors seem happy to incorporate them so I'd hope a revision with those is planned. Is it? [1] https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/secdir/current/msg04627.html |
2014-03-24
|
09 | Stephen Farrell | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Stephen Farrell |
2014-03-13
|
09 | Adrian Farrel | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Adrian Farrel |
2014-03-04
|
09 | Joel Jaeggli | Telechat date has been changed to 2014-03-27 from 2014-03-20 |
2014-03-01
|
09 | Joel Jaeggli | Placed on agenda for telechat - 2014-03-20 |
2014-03-01
|
09 | Joel Jaeggli | IESG state changed to IESG Evaluation from Waiting for Writeup |
2014-03-01
|
09 | Joel Jaeggli | Ballot has been issued |
2014-03-01
|
09 | Joel Jaeggli | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Joel Jaeggli |
2014-03-01
|
09 | Joel Jaeggli | Created "Approve" ballot |
2014-03-01
|
09 | Joel Jaeggli | Ballot writeup was changed |
2014-02-21
|
09 | Gunter Van de Velde | Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR Completed: Has Nits. Reviewer: Victor Kuarsingh. |
2014-02-21
|
09 | (System) | IESG state changed to Waiting for Writeup from In Last Call |
2014-02-19
|
09 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR Completed: Ready. Reviewer: Yaron Sheffer. |
2014-02-13
|
09 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Yaron Sheffer |
2014-02-13
|
09 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Yaron Sheffer |
2014-02-12
|
09 | Pearl Liang | IESG/Authors/WG Chairs: IANA has reviewed draft-ietf-v6ops-64share-09, which is currently in Last Call, and has the following comments: We understand that, upon approval of this … IESG/Authors/WG Chairs: IANA has reviewed draft-ietf-v6ops-64share-09, which is currently in Last Call, and has the following comments: We understand that, upon approval of this document, this document doesn't require any IANA actions. While it is helpful for the IANA Considerations section of the document to remain in place upon publication, if authors prefer to remove it, IANA does not object. If this assessment is not accurate, please respond as soon as possible. |
2014-02-12
|
09 | (System) | IANA Review state changed to IANA OK - No Actions Needed from IANA - Review Needed |
2014-02-08
|
09 | Gunter Van de Velde | Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR is assigned to Victor Kuarsingh |
2014-02-08
|
09 | Gunter Van de Velde | Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR is assigned to Victor Kuarsingh |
2014-02-07
|
09 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Ben Campbell |
2014-02-07
|
09 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Ben Campbell |
2014-02-07
|
09 | Amy Vezza | IANA Review state changed to IANA - Review Needed |
2014-02-07
|
09 | Amy Vezza | The following Last Call announcement was sent out: From: The IESG To: IETF-Announce CC: Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org Sender: Subject: Last Call: (Extending an IPv6 /64 Prefix … The following Last Call announcement was sent out: From: The IESG To: IETF-Announce CC: Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org Sender: Subject: Last Call: (Extending an IPv6 /64 Prefix from a 3GPP Mobile Interface to a LAN link) to Informational RFC The IESG has received a request from the IPv6 Operations WG (v6ops) to consider the following document: - 'Extending an IPv6 /64 Prefix from a 3GPP Mobile Interface to a LAN link' as Informational RFC The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2014-02-21. Exceptionally, comments may be sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting. Abstract This document describes requirements for extending an IPv6 /64 prefix from a User Equipment 3GPP radio interface to a LAN link as well as two implementation examples. The file can be obtained via http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-v6ops-64share/ IESG discussion can be tracked via http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-v6ops-64share/ballot/ No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D. |
2014-02-07
|
09 | Amy Vezza | IESG state changed to In Last Call from Last Call Requested |
2014-02-07
|
09 | Amy Vezza | Last call announcement was generated |
2014-02-06
|
09 | Joel Jaeggli | Last call was requested |
2014-02-06
|
09 | Joel Jaeggli | Last call announcement was generated |
2014-02-06
|
09 | Joel Jaeggli | Ballot approval text was generated |
2014-02-06
|
09 | Joel Jaeggli | Ballot writeup was generated |
2014-02-06
|
09 | Joel Jaeggli | IESG state changed to Last Call Requested from AD Evaluation |
2014-02-06
|
09 | Joel Jaeggli | IESG state changed to AD Evaluation from Publication Requested |
2014-02-06
|
09 | Cindy Morgan | (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? … (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? The draft is intended to be at, and requests, Informational status. (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 summarizes the sharing of IPv6 connectivity for 3GPP devices or UEs in advance of implementations that fully support IPv6 prefix delegation. Specifically, this document outlines how a 3GPP device can facilitate connection sharing where only a single, globally routable /64 IPv6 prefix is available. Working Group Summary: This draft was initiated in December 2012 draft-ietf-v6ops-64share-00.txt and has been actively updated since the initial draft was published. T-Mobile and DT have been actively working in this space advancing this work while mobile handsets evolve to support more advanced connectivity models including support for IPv6 prefix delegation. The overarching goal of the draft is to enable support for multiple devices through a connection that is enabled with globally routable IPv6 connectivity that is typically akin to that for a single device. This work does not employ the use of IPv6 address sharing or any form of translation related to IPv6. The working group has commented on at length and in turn the authors revised the draft to account for this feedback. Principally significant feedback was given around MTU handling and matters related to IPv6 neighbor discovery in where 64share has been deployed. More recently alignment with related work has been considered including RFC6204bis. Finally, Neighbor Discovery Proxy (ND Proxy) [RFC4389] functionality has been suggested as an option for extending the assigned /64 from the 3GPP radio interface to the LAN link, but ND Proxy is an experimental protocol and has some limitations with loop-avoidance. Document Quality: As specified in the abstract, the document is not a protocol or procedure; the document does outline implementation details and observations of the same to date in various modes of operation. Personnel: The document shepherd is John Jason Brzozowski. The responsible AD is Joel Jaegli. (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. In the view of the chairs, this document is ready for publication, having been reviewed thoroughly by working group since the document was initially published. The shepherd tracked working group commentary. The shepherd also read the document and ran it through idnits. (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. I have no issues with the document as it stands. (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? The authors tell me that they know of no outstanding IPR disclosures. (8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures. Per http://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/search/?option=document_search&id=draft-byr ne-v6ops-64share, there are no relevant IPR disclosures. (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 general consensus for this document, generally speaking the WG appears to understand the scope and importance of this work. Again this work is focused on enabling IPv6 connectivity where advanced support for IPv6 provisioning in the form of IPv6 prefix delegation appearing in mobile devices and networks. (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. idnits was run on draft -09, minor, miscellaneous issues were reported. (12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews. Irrelevant. (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. The normative references are all to informational, BCP, or standards track documents. As an informational document, these are not downward references. (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 document doesn't change the status of any RFCs. (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 memo includes no request to IANA. (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 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. None. There is no formal language in the document. |
2014-02-06
|
09 | Cindy Morgan | Intended Status changed to Informational |
2014-02-06
|
09 | Cindy Morgan | IESG process started in state Publication Requested |
2014-02-06
|
09 | (System) | Earlier history may be found in the Comment Log for /doc/draft-byrne-v6ops-64share/ |
2014-02-06
|
09 | Cindy Morgan | Working group state set to Submitted to IESG for Publication |
2014-02-06
|
09 | Cindy Morgan | Document shepherd changed to John Jason Brzozowski |
2013-10-06
|
09 | Vizdal Ales | New version available: draft-ietf-v6ops-64share-09.txt |
2013-07-29
|
08 | Joel Jaeggli | Shepherding AD changed to Joel Jaeggli |
2013-07-14
|
08 | Vizdal Ales | New version available: draft-ietf-v6ops-64share-08.txt |
2013-05-17
|
07 | Cameron Byrne | New version available: draft-ietf-v6ops-64share-07.txt |
2013-05-17
|
06 | Cameron Byrne | New version available: draft-ietf-v6ops-64share-06.txt |
2013-05-17
|
05 | Cameron Byrne | New version available: draft-ietf-v6ops-64share-05.txt |
2013-04-05
|
04 | Cameron Byrne | New version available: draft-ietf-v6ops-64share-04.txt |
2013-02-20
|
03 | Cameron Byrne | New version available: draft-ietf-v6ops-64share-03.txt |
2013-02-08
|
02 | Cameron Byrne | New version available: draft-ietf-v6ops-64share-02.txt |
2013-01-29
|
01 | Cameron Byrne | New version available: draft-ietf-v6ops-64share-01.txt |
2012-12-17
|
00 | Cameron Byrne | New version available: draft-ietf-v6ops-64share-00.txt |