Issues and Recommendations with Multiple Stateful DHCPv6 Options
Draft of message to be sent after approval:
From: The IESG <firstname.lastname@example.org> To: IETF-Announce <email@example.com> Cc: RFC Editor <firstname.lastname@example.org>, dhc mailing list <email@example.com>, dhc chair <firstname.lastname@example.org> Subject: Protocol Action: 'Issues and Recommendations with Multiple Stateful DHCPv6 Options' to Proposed Standard (draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-stateful-issues-12.txt) The IESG has approved the following document: - 'Issues and Recommendations with Multiple Stateful DHCPv6 Options' (draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-stateful-issues-12.txt) as Proposed Standard This document is the product of the Dynamic Host Configuration Working Group. The IESG contact persons are Brian Haberman and Ted Lemon. A URL of this Internet Draft is: http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-stateful-issues/
Technical Summary DHCPv6 (RFC3316) was not written with the initial expectation that additional stateful DHCPv6 options would be developed. Prefix Delegation (RFC3633) introduced the IA_PD option, which is stateful. Implementation experience of the CPE model described in RFC 7084 has shown multiple issues with the DHCPv6 protocol in supporting multiple stateful options. This document updates RFC 3315 and RFC 3633 to address the identified issues. It is also considered an essential milestone in the RFC3315bis work. Working Group Summary This draft was around in the DHC for a long time (WG item since May 2012) and was discussed extensively (248 mails posted to the dhc list the last time I checked, with many more off-line and on the dhcpv6bis list). It was started as a spin-off from RFC7084 work (Basic requirements for IPv6 CE routers). This I-D went through three WGLCs. The first one (for -03) in Jan. 2013 failed due to lack of responses. The document went into hibernation for a while, and we had a second WGLC in Feb. 2014. Some feedback and support was received, but chairs decided that it's not sufficient for such an important I-D (it tweaks several major mechanisms in DHCPv6, so we felt that the bar is set higher than average). Finally, the third WGLC in Dec. 2014 passed. There was never any opposition to this draft. The challenge was to persuade people to express their support. Document Quality This I-D clarifies and corrects several inconstencies in DHCPv6. The ambiguity in the RFC3315 and RFC3633 causes some interop problems. Several of the issues addressed were raised during interop events. This document is of high quality. It was extensively reviewed by matter experts that are involved in several independent implementations. This I-D is also considered an essential step in the 3315bis work, so it received further reviews and discussions in the dhcpv6bis team. There are partial implementations of this proposal, but all major vendors that participated are planning to implement this proposal. Many clarifications came out as a result of the interop testing. One could even say that many parts of this I-D are implemented for many years now. Prompt adoption upon publication is expected. Personnel Tomek Mrugalski is the shepherd. Ted Lemon is the responsible AD.