Skip to main content

Shepherd writeup
draft-ietf-v6ops-slaac-renum

(1) This draft is aimed at being an Informational RFC. Informational is the
appropriate type because it provides both a problem statement and possible
operational mitigations and associated constraints.

(2) IESG Approval Announcement

Technical Summary:
This is a companion document to
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-v6ops-cpe-slaac-renum/. This
document provides advice for the operator side of the process whereas the other
document provides advice for the client or CPE side of the process. Together,
both documents attempt to improve the user experience when unplanned SLAAC
renumbering events occur.

Document Quality:

The document so far has been approved by the V6OPS working group (successful
working group last call). The document does not specify new protocol, but
rather provides guidance regarding how to override the default values of some
parameters in the existing protocols.

Personnel

Owen DeLong is the Document Shepherd
Fred Baker and Ron Bonica are the WG chairs
Warren Kumari is the responsible AD.

(3) Shepherd’s review

Prior to becoming shepherd, I was significantly involved in reviewing each
revision of the document and provided feedback and contributed improvements at
each step. I have been active in the debate of this I-D on the working group
mailing list. This version of the document is ready for publication.

(4) Shepherd’s concerns

I have no concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been
performed.

The document (along side its companion document
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-v6ops-cpe-slaac-renum/ has received
substantial comments from the working group. Author has been very responsive
and incorporated feedback very well.

(5) Special Reviews Needed

I do not believe any special reviews are necessary for this document.

(6) Shepherd’s Concerns or issues

I have no concerns or issues with the document in its current form.

(7) IPR disclosures

There are no relevant IPR disclosures in this document. The document does not
touch on any technologies other than those in existing RFCs developed within
the IETF.

(8) IPRs referencing this document

No IPR disclosures have been filed referencing this document and for the
reasons stated in the previous section, it is very unlikely one would be filed.

(9) WG consensus strength

This document had good participation and discussion in the working group and
received fairly broad support both prior to and during WG last call.

(10) Dissent

None

(11) ID nits

No nits found (once I got past the fact that the NITS interface via URL doesn’t
cope well with this draft for reasons beyond me). Feeding it the raw text
worked fine.
Back