IPv6 Guidance for Internet Content Providers and Application Service Providers
draft-ietf-v6ops-icp-guidance-05

[Ballot comment]
I'm not fully convinced about the usefulness of this draft, as the content is either widely known by folks skilled in the art or you can read it somewhere else or a lot of providers just did it already. Therefore, I am balloting Abstain.
The draft is probably 5 years late.

Some comments you might consider:

Did this draft receive any input or feedback from any what you call ICP?

Section 1., paragraph 4:

>    Nevertheless, it is important that the introduction of IPv6 service
>    should not make service for IPv4 customers worse.  In some
>    circumstances, technologies intended to assist in the transition from
>    IPv4 to IPv6 are known to have negative effects on the user
>    experience.  A deployment strategy for IPv6 must avoid these effects
>    as much as possible.

  What are those effects?


Section 3., paragraph 2:

>    There is an anecdote of one IPv6 deployment in which prefixes
>    including the letters A to F were avoided by design, to avoid
>    confusing system administrators unfamiliar with hexadecimal notation.
>    This is not a desirable result.  There is another anecdote of a help
>    desk responder telling a customer to "disable one-Pv6" in order to
>    solve a problem.  It should be a goal to avoid having untrained staff
>    who don't understand hexadecimal or who can't even spell "IPv6".

  That are tales but what's the meat?


Section 5.3., paragraph 1:

>    It must be understood that as soon as an AAAA record for a well-known
>    name is published in the DNS, the corresponding server will start to
>    receive IPv6 traffic.  Therefore, it is essential that an ICP tests

  To be precise: An AAAA record does not imply that the IP address
  list in this record is reachable. I.e., the server could receive
  IPv6 traffic if the IPv6 network is setup correctly. Your text
  suggests that setting the AAAA record is just enough.

[Ballot comment]
I'm not fully convinced about the usefulness of this draft, as the content is either widely known by folks skilled in the art or you can read it somewhere else or a lot of providers just did it already. Therefore, I am balloting Abstain.

Some comments you might consider:

Did this draft receive any input or feedback from any what you call ICP?

Section 1., paragraph 4:

>    Nevertheless, it is important that the introduction of IPv6 service
>    should not make service for IPv4 customers worse.  In some
>    circumstances, technologies intended to assist in the transition from
>    IPv4 to IPv6 are known to have negative effects on the user
>    experience.  A deployment strategy for IPv6 must avoid these effects
>    as much as possible.

  What are those effects?


Section 3., paragraph 2:

>    There is an anecdote of one IPv6 deployment in which prefixes
>    including the letters A to F were avoided by design, to avoid
>    confusing system administrators unfamiliar with hexadecimal notation.
>    This is not a desirable result.  There is another anecdote of a help
>    desk responder telling a customer to "disable one-Pv6" in order to
>    solve a problem.  It should be a goal to avoid having untrained staff
>    who don't understand hexadecimal or who can't even spell "IPv6".

  That are tales but what's the meat?


Section 5.3., paragraph 1:

>    It must be understood that as soon as an AAAA record for a well-known
>    name is published in the DNS, the corresponding server will start to
>    receive IPv6 traffic.  Therefore, it is essential that an ICP tests

  To be precise: An AAAA record does not imply that the IP address
  list in this record is reachable. I.e., the server could receive
  IPv6 traffic if the IPv6 network it setup correctly. Your text
  suggests that setting the AAAA record is just enough.

[Ballot discuss]
I concur with Nevil Brownlee in his OPS-DIR review: I found it engrossing to read - the information it conveys is all available elsewhere, but it's presented here in an easily accessible way, along with a useful list of references.

However, I have a DISCUSS

In section 13 "Operations and Management", you speak about IPv4 and IPv6 operations as if IPv6 operations were a MUST.
For example.

  As far as possible, however, mutual dependency between IPv4 and IPv6
  operations should be avoided. 

  ...
  It should also be possible to use
  IPv4 connectivity to repair IPv6 configurations, and vice versa.

  ...

  In particular, a management tool that manages IPv6 but itself runs only
  over IPv4 would prove disastrous on the day that IPv4 is switched
  off.

However, practically today, managing IPv6 via IPv4 is done and it works fine.
You should explain it in this section, as a phase approach.

And also stress the difference between the way to access the devices (IPv4 or IPv6) and IPv6 management data (which can be retrieve via IPv4).
For example, the following is not clear:

  Whatever management, monitoring and logging is performed for IPv4 is
  also needed for IPv6.  Therefore, all products and tools used for
  these purposes must be updated to fully support IPv6.

For example, I'm not sure which one you mean by "operations" in

  As far as possible, however, mutual dependency between IPv4 and IPv6
  operations should be avoided.

[Ballot comment]

Not sure if it's worth adding here, but an additional reason to use DNS names and not IP addresses are names in certificates.  If you're putting the IPv4 address in now you also gotta do it for your IPv6 addresses - better to just use DNS names.

Fernando's VPN traffic leakages in dual stack networks draft (draft-ietf-opsec-vpn-leakages-00) might be worth a mention or at least a warning that folks should test to make sure the problem described therein is fixed before blindly accepting that it works.

Pretty please suggest people actually turn security on for the protocols they enable: DNSSEC, DHCPv6 Auth, etc.

s12: r/provid./provided.

[Ballot comment]

  Please consider the editorial comments provided in the Gen-ART Review
  by Meral Shirazipour on 19-Dec-2012.  You can find the review here:
  http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/gen-art/current/msg08007.html

IANA has reviewed draft-ietf-v6ops-icp-guidance-04, which is currently
in Last Call, and has the following comments:

IANA understands that, upon approval of this document, there are no IANA
Actions that need completion.

The following Last Call announcement was sent out:

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC:
Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Last Call:  (IPv6 Guidance for Internet Content and Application Service Providers) to Informational RFC


The IESG has received a request from the IPv6 Operations WG (v6ops) to
consider the following document:
- 'IPv6 Guidance for Internet Content and Application Service Providers'
  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 2012-12-20. 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 provides guidance and suggestions for Internet Content
  Providers and Application Service Providers who wish to offer their
  service to both IPv6 and IPv4 customers.  Many of the points will
  also apply to hosting providers, or to any enterprise network
  preparing for IPv6 users.




The file can be obtained via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-v6ops-icp-guidance/

IESG discussion can be tracked via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-v6ops-icp-guidance/ballot/


No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D.

> (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?

draft-ietf-v6ops-icp-guidance is requesting, and says it is requesting, informational status. The working group agrees that this is an appropriate status, as it is a working group outcome but is primarily intended to make suggestions to new content providers and application service providers regarding IPv6 deployment.

> (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 provides guidance and suggestions for Internet Content
Providers and Application Service Providers who wish to offer their
service to both IPv6 and IPv4 customers. Many of the points will
also apply to hosting providers, or to any enterprise network
preparing for IPv6 users.

> Working Group Summary:

The working group, while it made comments that improved the document, found it uncontroversial.

> Document Quality:

The document is a set of recommendations. It has the support of the operators in the working group.

> Personnel:
>
> Who is the Document Shepherd? Who is the Responsible Area Director?

The document shepherd is Joel Jaeggli. The area director is Ron Bonica.

> (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 working group chairs, and notably the document shepherd, contributed comments to the review.

> (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.

There was discussion in the working group, which was addressed in the document. There are no remaining issues to my knowledge.

> (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.

Per http://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/search/?option=document_search&document_search=draft-ietf-v6ops-icp-guidance, no IPR notices 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?

There is general support for the document.

> (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.

None identified, apart from the fact that four referenced documents were updated last week. I would suggest picking up the references, along with any others, when the document must be revised for IESG or IETF Last Call comments.

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

It contains no formal language.

> (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?

The normative references are all to RFCs.

> (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 RFCs, and are all current; at informational level, these are all upward 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.

It does not change the status of 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 5226).

The IANA section calls for no new parameters, and the document calls for no new parameters.

> (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.

Really?