[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
draft-ietf-v6ops-addcon 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?
Yes I do.
(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?
Yes, it has. This document grew out of discussions among various
networks along with Cisco as a vendor, and addressing issues that
they each had. This has been presented to the working group twice,
each time with some discussion but few consensus problems. The
operational recommendations it makes are in no sense exhaustive, but
they do represent practices that have been proven in the field. One
could argue that it should be BCP, and probably should be taken to
that status at some future time.
(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?
It has had operational review, being largely written and commented on
by operators. It doesn't especially bring up the other issues asked
about here, and so does not require their review beyond assuring
themselves that this is the case.
(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.
No.
(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?
Working Group consensus is fairly strong behind the document, as
demonstrated in the working group discussions. There is not a lot of
list discussion, but there has been good discussion and solid support
in face-to-face meetings.
(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?
Yes.
The idnits tool notes a bit of text that looks like a reference but
is not, and three referenced documents were obsoleted by new RFCs in
September. I believe that the RFC Editor can address the three
references if instructed to in a note, but if there are other updates
required the authors could pick up the references when doing so.
(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?
(1.h) Has the document split its references into normative and
informative?
Yes
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].
no.
(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?
There are no extra IANA consideration for this document, and the
document states 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?
there is no formal language of this type in the document.
(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:
One fundamental aspect of any IP communications infrastructure is
its
addressing plan. With its new address architecture and allocation
policies, the introduction of IPv6 into a network means that network
designers and operators need to reconsider their existing approaches
to network addressing. Lack of guidelines on handling this
aspect of
network design could slow down the deployment and integration of
IPv6. This document aims to provide the information and
recommendations relevant to planning the addressing aspects of IPv6
deployments. The document also provides IPv6 addressing case
studies
for both an enterprise and an ISP network.
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?
not really.
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. However, its recommendations are indeed
widely implemented; it documents practice.
idnits 2.05.02
tmp/draft-ietf-v6ops-addcon-07.txt:
tmp/draft-ietf-v6ops-addcon-07.txt(932): Appendix start: Appendix A.
Case Studies.
- Failure fetching the file, proceeding without it.)
Appendix start: Appendix A. Case Studies
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
- ------------------------------------------------------------------------
- ----
-- Looks like a reference, but probably isn't: 'RIID' on line 496
'Where: [RIID] = 4 bit....'
-- Obsolete informational reference (is this intentional?): RFC
2462 (ref.
'2') (Obsoleted by RFC 4862)
-- Obsolete informational reference (is this intentional?): RFC
2471 (ref.
'3') (Obsoleted by RFC 3701)
-- Obsolete informational reference (is this intentional?): RFC
3041 (ref.
'6') (Obsoleted by RFC 4941)
== Outdated reference: A later version (-04) exists of
draft-ietf-v6ops-scanning-implications-03
Summary: 0 errors (**), 1 warning (==), 4 comments (--).
- ------------------------------------------------------------------------
- --------
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
iD8DBQFHVHs0bjEdbHIsm0MRAm35AKDLfZX8wGflE/37huXzdgIVksivOgCgqFnV
VmBmvMrvsni13ZxgTfV3z4c=
=3jjO
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----