As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document
Changes are expected over time. This version is dated 24 February 2012.
(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?
Proposed Standard. This document extends DHCP and Neighbor
Discovery by adding new configuration-information-carrying options,
and contains an applicability statement.
(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:
This document describes a DHCP option and an RA extension to inform
nodes that they are behind some sort of captive portal device, and
that they will need to authenticate to get Internet Access.
Working Group Summary
This document was reviewed by the DHC working group, but was not adopted
there because the work is not in charter. Because it defines new DHCP options,
it's not really in charter for 6man either.
Dan Lüdtke has done an implementation of the router side of the RA option.
We are aware of no RA listener implementations nor DHCP client
implementations. Because this document defines DHCP options,
any generally-configurable DHCP server or client can
readily be configured to support this new option, typically without recompilation.
The option question for this document is whether captive portal manufacturers
and, more importantly, DHCP client implementors and RA listener implementors
will see the extension as valuable and make use of it.
The reason for advancing it at this stage rather than waiting for widespread
adoption is that until a standard format is defined, the extension serves no
useful purpose and cannot be deployed. By documenting this extension,
we hope to provide an opportunity for improvement in the way captive
portals are operated.
Ted Lemon is the document shepherd.
Joel Jaeggli is the responsible AD.
(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
I have read this document and suggested changes to the author, who has addressed the concerns I raised. I believe the document is ready for publication.
(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or
breadth of the reviews that have been performed?
(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
The DHC working group has reviewed the document, and I've also reviewed it for correctness.
(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 interested community has
discussed those issues and has indicated that it still wishes to advance
the document, detail those concerns here.
I think there is a potential need for this document. It's possible that no client implementors will adopt it, but I think it's worth the risk, since without this document, we can be certain that no mechanism of this sort will ever be adopted.
(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.
(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document?
If so, summarize any discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR
(9) How solid is the consensus of the interested community behind this
document? Does it represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals,
with others being silent, or does the interested community as a whole
understand and agree with it?
There seems to be some concurrence that this proposal is worth trying. I would not describe the support for it as broad, but I don't think it needs to be, since at worst the document is harmless, and at best it's potentially useful.
(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.)
The worst negative comment was along the lines of "isn't this solved by 802.11u?" The person who made the comment has not expressed any intention to stand in the way of advancing the document, nor even an indication that he personally is against advancing it.
(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
(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review
criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.
(13) Have all references within this document been identified as
either normative or informative?
(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?
(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.
There are no downward reference.
(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 interested community considers it unnecessary.
(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 document creates no new registries. --tbd-- modulo edits --tbd-- The IANA registry section appears to be correct.
(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 to validate
sections of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code,
BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc.
There are no such checks required for this document.