Operational Issues with Processing of the Hop-by-Hop Options Header
draft-ietf-v6ops-hbh-10
Revision differences
Document history
Date | Rev. | By | Action |
---|---|---|---|
2024-02-26
|
10 | Jenny Bui | Notification list changed to tom@herbertland.com because the document shepherd was set |
2024-02-26
|
10 | Jenny Bui | Document shepherd changed to Tom Herbert |
2024-02-26
|
10 | Jenny Bui | 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 … 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 21 February 2024. (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 type of RFC is Informational. This is appropriate as the document is describing operational issues and not proposing new protocol. This is indicated in the title 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: Relevant content can frequently be found in the abstract and/or introduction of the document. If not, this may be an indication that there are deficiencies in the abstract or introduction. This document describes the processing of the Hop-by-Hop Options Header (HBH) in current routers in the aspects of standards specification, common implementations, and default operations. The purpose of this draft is to document reasons why HBH Options Header is rarely used within networks. It motivates the benefits and requirements needed to enable wider use of HBH Options. Working Group Summary: Was there anything in WG process that is worth noting? For example, was there controversy about particular points or were there decisions where the consensus was particularly rough? Nick Hilliard raised issues about whether the material contained in the draft was already covered by other RFCs (RFC8200, RFC9098, and draft-hinden-6man-hbh-processing). The authors responded to Nick in WGLC and revised the draft with no further objections. Initially in WGLC, there we several questions on whether this document was needed. The authors responded and seem to have answered the concerns. Document Quality: Are there existing implementations of the protocol? Have a significant number of vendors indicated their plan to implement the specification? Are there any reviewers that merit special mention as having done a thorough review, e.g., one that resulted in important changes or a conclusion that the document had no substantive issues? If there was a MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, Media Type or other expert review, what was its course (briefly)? In the case of a Media Type review, on what date was the request posted? This document is describing existing implemenations and operations. Nick Hilliard, Bob Hinden, and Gorry Fairhust were prominent reviewers. Personnel: Who is the Document Shepherd? Who is the Responsible Area Director? Tom Herbert in the Document Shepherd, Warren "Ace" Kumari 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 review carefully the document. Several points for clarification and edits were raised in the review. The authors were very quick to respond and make the requested changes. I have no major concerns with the document and believe it is ready for publication.. (4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed? I have no concerns. (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, reviews by v6ops WG should be sufficient. (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 concerns, and the WG seems to have consensus. (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? Authors confirmed there are not aware of any IPR. (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? Good consensus. (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. Results from IDnits: idnits 2.17.1 draft.txt: Checking boilerplate required by RFC 5378 and the IETF Trust (see https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info): ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/1id-guidelines.txt: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == Mismatching filename: the document gives the document name as 'draft-ietf-v6ops-hbh-10', but the file name used is 'draft' == There are 13 instances of lines with non-ascii characters in the document. == It seems as if not all pages are separated by form feeds - found 0 form feeds but 12 pages Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist : ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ** There is 1 instance of too long lines in the document, the longest one being 4 characters in excess of 72. Miscellaneous warnings: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Checking references for intended status: Informational ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == Unused Reference: 'RFC2711' is defined on line 461, but no explicit reference was found in the text Summary: 1 error (**), 0 flaws (~~), 4 warnings (==), 0 comments (--). Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about the items above. (12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews. This does not apply here. (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. Two IDs have normative refences, they are both in WGLC. (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. This document does not change the status of any existing 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 8126). There are no IANA considerations in this 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. There are no requests to IANA in this document (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, YANG modules, etc. Not applicable to this document. (20) If the document contains a YANG module, has the module been checked with any of the recommended validation tools (https://trac.ietf.org/trac/ops/wiki/yang-review-tools) for syntax and formatting validation? If there are any resulting errors or warnings, what is the justification for not fixing them at this time? Does the YANG module comply with the Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA) as specified in RFC8342? Not applicable to this document. |
2024-02-16
|
10 | Shuping Peng | New version available: draft-ietf-v6ops-hbh-10.txt |
2024-02-16
|
10 | Shuping Peng | New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Shuping Peng) |
2024-02-16
|
10 | Shuping Peng | Uploaded new revision |
2024-02-10
|
09 | Shuping Peng | New version available: draft-ietf-v6ops-hbh-09.txt |
2024-02-10
|
09 | Shuping Peng | New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Shuping Peng) |
2024-02-10
|
09 | Shuping Peng | Uploaded new revision |
2024-02-07
|
08 | Shuping Peng | New version available: draft-ietf-v6ops-hbh-08.txt |
2024-02-07
|
08 | Shuping Peng | New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Shuping Peng) |
2024-02-07
|
08 | Shuping Peng | Uploaded new revision |
2023-11-29
|
07 | Shuping Peng | New version available: draft-ietf-v6ops-hbh-07.txt |
2023-11-29
|
07 | Shuping Peng | New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Shuping Peng) |
2023-11-29
|
07 | Shuping Peng | Uploaded new revision |
2023-11-23
|
06 | Shuping Peng | New version available: draft-ietf-v6ops-hbh-06.txt |
2023-11-23
|
06 | Shuping Peng | New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Shuping Peng) |
2023-11-23
|
06 | Shuping Peng | Uploaded new revision |
2023-11-01
|
05 | XiPeng Xiao | IETF WG state changed to In WG Last Call from WG Document |
2023-09-10
|
05 | Shuping Peng | New version available: draft-ietf-v6ops-hbh-05.txt |
2023-09-10
|
05 | Shuping Peng | New version approved |
2023-09-10
|
05 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Chongfeng Xie , Gyan Mishra , Shuping Peng , Zhenbin Li , Zhuangzhuang Qin |
2023-09-10
|
05 | Shuping Peng | Uploaded new revision |
2023-09-10
|
04 | (System) | Document has expired |
2023-03-09
|
04 | Shuping Peng | New version available: draft-ietf-v6ops-hbh-04.txt |
2023-03-09
|
04 | Shuping Peng | New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Shuping Peng) |
2023-03-09
|
04 | Shuping Peng | Uploaded new revision |
2023-01-28
|
03 | Shuping Peng | New version available: draft-ietf-v6ops-hbh-03.txt |
2023-01-28
|
03 | Shuping Peng | New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Shuping Peng) |
2023-01-28
|
03 | Shuping Peng | Uploaded new revision |
2022-10-21
|
02 | Shuping Peng | New version available: draft-ietf-v6ops-hbh-02.txt |
2022-10-21
|
02 | Shuping Peng | New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Shuping Peng) |
2022-10-21
|
02 | Shuping Peng | Uploaded new revision |
2022-10-20
|
01 | (System) | Document has expired |
2022-04-18
|
01 | Shuping Peng | New version available: draft-ietf-v6ops-hbh-01.txt |
2022-04-18
|
01 | (System) | New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Shuping Peng) |
2022-04-18
|
01 | Shuping Peng | Uploaded new revision |
2022-04-14
|
00 | (System) | Document has expired |
2021-10-11
|
00 | Ron Bonica | This document now replaces draft-peng-v6ops-hbh instead of None |
2021-10-11
|
00 | Shuping Peng | New version available: draft-ietf-v6ops-hbh-00.txt |
2021-10-11
|
00 | (System) | WG -00 approved |
2021-10-09
|
00 | Shuping Peng | Set submitter to "Shuping Peng ", replaces to draft-peng-v6ops-hbh and sent approval email to group chairs: v6ops-chairs@ietf.org |
2021-10-09
|
00 | Shuping Peng | Uploaded new revision |