[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
draft-ietf-v6ops-rfc3330-for-ipv6 to informational
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
(1.a) Who is the Document Shepherd for this document?
Fred Baker
Has the Document Shepherd personally reviewed this version of the
document and, in particular, does he or she believe this version is
ready for forwarding to the IESG for publication?
I have read the document, and believe that it is ready for publication.
(1.b) Has the document had adequate review both from key WG members
and from key non-WG members? Does the Document Shepherd have any
concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been
performed?
This document encompasses recommendations that have come forward in
various documents and are accumulated together here. It has
experienced extensive review and update, as evidenced in its -03
numbering and the long list of names in its acknowledgements. It also
builds on the experience in IPv4 with RFC 3330, which has similar
provisions for similar address usages.
In addition, it doesn't actually specify new addresses or address
usage. What it does is point to various RFCs (4291, 3056, 3964, etc)
where different address usages are specified and bring them into one
place where an operator can deal with them without extensive research.
(1.c) Does the Document Shepherd have concerns that the document
needs more review from a particular or broader perspective, e.g.,
security, operational complexity, someone familiar with AAA,
internationalization or XML?
No. In earlier versions there were some controversial
recommendations, but these have been removed to make the document a
clear example of consensus guidance.
(1.d) Does the Document Shepherd have any specific concerns or
issues 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. Has an IPR
disclosure related to this document been filed? If so, please
include a reference to the disclosure and summarize the WG
discussion and conclusion on this issue.
One could argue that there was no need for RFC 3330, as the address
usages it specified were all called out in other documents. However,
that would force the network operator to review all possible RFCs and
hope he hit all the right cases. Similarly here. I believe that the
document is needed, for the same reason that RFC 3330 is needed - to
pull into one place the information a network operator needs on this
topic.
(1.e) 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 strong working group consensus across a fairly broad
operational spectrum.
(1.f) 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 entered
into the ID Tracker.)
no
(1.g) Has the Document Shepherd personally verified that the
document satisfies all ID nits? (See http://www.ietf.org/ID-
Checklist.html and http://tools.ietf.org/tools/idnits/).
Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be thorough.
Has the document met all formal review criteria it needs to, such
as the MIB Doctor, media type and URI type reviews?
the document includes two informational references to RFCs that are
obsolete - it mentions RFCs 1897, 2471, and 3701, which successively
obsolete each other. This is included for historical purposes, to whit:
5f00::/8 were the addresses of the first instance of the 6bone
experimental network [RFC1897].
3ffe::/16 were the addresses of the second instance of the 6bone
experimental network [RFC2471].
Both 5f00::/8 and 3ffe::/16 were returned to IANA [RFC3701]. These
addresses are subject to future allocation, similar to current
unallocated address space. Addresses within this block should not
appear on the public Internet until they are reallocated.
[RFC1897] Hinden, R. and J. Postel, "IPv6 Testing Address
Allocation", RFC 1897, January 1996.
[RFC2471] Hinden, R., Fink, R., and J. Postel, "IPv6 Testing
Address
Allocation", RFC 2471, December 1998.
[RFC3701] Fink, R. and R. Hinden, "6bone (IPv6 Testing Address
Allocation) Phaseout", RFC 3701, March 2004.
(1.h) Has the document split its references into normative and
informative?
yes it has
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 strategy for their completion? Are
there normative references that are downward references, as
described in [RFC3967]? If so, list these downward references to
support the Area Director in the Last Call procedure for them
[RFC3967].
All of the references are to published RFCs.
(1.i) Has the Document Shepherd verified that the document IANA
consideration section exists and is consistent with the body of the
document? If the document specifies protocol extensions, are
reservations requested in appropriate IANA registries? Are the IANA
registries clearly identified? If the document creates a new
registry, does it define the proposed initial contents of the
registry and an allocation procedure for future registrations? Does
it suggest a reasonable name for the new registry? See [RFC2434].
If the document describes an Expert Review process has Shepherd
conferred with the Responsible Area Director so that the IESG can
appoint the needed Expert during the IESG Evaluation?
This document has no actions for IANA, and its IANA considerations
say as much.
(1.j) Has the Document Shepherd verified that sections of the
document that are written in a formal language, such as XML code,
BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc., validate correctly in an
automated checker?
The document contains no formal language of that type. We could
discuss boilerplate :-)
(1.k) 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: Relevant content can frequently be found in the
abstract and/or introduction of the document. If not, this may be
an indication that there are deficiencies in the abstract or
introduction.
The abstract reads:
This document describes the global and other specialized IPv6
address
blocks.It does not address IPv6 address space assigned to operators
and users through the Regional Internet Registries. These
descriptions are useful for route and IP filtering, for
documentation
and other purposes.
Working Group Summary: Was there anything in WG process that is
worth noting? For example, was there controversy about particular
points or were there decisions where the consensus was particularly
rough?
The big thing to note was the level of review and the willingness of
Marc to respond to the review.
Document Quality: Are there existing implementations of the
protocol? Have a significant number of vendors indicated their plan
to implement the specification? Are there any reviewers that merit
special mention as having done a thorough review, e.g., one that
resulted in important changes or a conclusion that the document had
no substantive issues? If there was a MIB Doctor, Media Type or
other expert review, what was its course (briefly)? In the case of
a Media Type review, on what date was the request posted?
This is not a protocol; it is in essence a BGP policy filtering
recommendation. It is fairly widely implemented in IPv6 networks.
idnits 2.05.02
tmp/draft-ietf-v6ops-rfc3330-for-ipv6-03.txt:
Checking boilerplate required by RFC 3978 and 3979, updated by RFC
4748:
- ------------------------------------------------------------------------
- ----
No issues found here.
Checking nits according to http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-
guidelines.txt:
- ------------------------------------------------------------------------
- ----
No issues found here.
Checking nits according to http://www.ietf.org/ID-Checklist.html:
- ------------------------------------------------------------------------
- ----
No issues found here.
Miscellaneous warnings:
- ------------------------------------------------------------------------
- ----
No issues found here.
Checking references for intended status: Informational
- ------------------------------------------------------------------------
- ----
-- Obsolete informational reference (is this intentional?): RFC 1897
(Obsoleted by RFC 2471)
-- Obsolete informational reference (is this intentional?): RFC 2471
(Obsoleted by RFC 3701)
Summary: 0 errors (**), 0 warnings (==), 2 comments (--).
- ------------------------------------------------------------------------
- --------
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
iD8DBQFHVHXbbjEdbHIsm0MRAqwHAKCu7AwCG0cEv2etrnSUrjIZwodqNACePBAU
vM1IWKWgFqhF1Qo7AEOpI90=
=9cpf
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----