Issues and Recommendations with Multiple Stateful DHCPv6 Options
RFC 7550

Approval announcement
Draft of message to be sent after approval:

From: The IESG <iesg-secretary@ietf.org>
To: IETF-Announce <ietf-announce@ietf.org>
Cc: RFC Editor <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>,
    dhc mailing list <dhcwg@ietf.org>,
    dhc chair <dhc-chairs@tools.ietf.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.