[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
draft-ietf-v6ops-addr-select-ps 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, and yes.
(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?
The document process with this and the associated requirements
document has been rather complex. RFC 3484 is implemented in a
variety of OS's, but it has been too difficult to use operationally
for several reasons. This is the reason that the discussion has started.
Yes, there has been a great deal of working group discussion and
review, most of it face to face or offline.
(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 is operational people who are writing and discussing the document,
so I don't believe that further operational review is required. I
also believe that it doesn't bring up issues of the other types
mentioned here.
(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.
RFC 3484 has been difficult to use, and there is therefore a solution
needed. The development of the solution is expected to occur in 6man.
A problem statement and a requirements document are appropriate to
guide that discussion.
(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?
The working group seems to have a consensus around the problem and
the requirements. The solution is not agreed to yet.
(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?
Yes, it does. The idnits tool complains about the use of db8:8000,
apparently checking for RFC 3849's 2001:DB8. The paragraph in
question is:
Host-C is located somewhere on the Internet and has IPv6 address
2001:db8:a000::1. When Host-A sends a packet to Host-C, the longest
matching algorithm chooses 2001:db8:8000:1::EUI64 for the source
address. In this case, the packet goes through ISP1 and may be
filtered by ISP1's ingress filter. Even if the packet is not
filtered by ISP1, a return packet from Host-C cannot possibly be
delivered to Host-A because the return packet is destined for 2001:
db8:8000:1::EUI64, which is closed from the Internet.
As you can see, the address wrapped around an end of line, and is
therefore not a real issue.
(1.h) Has the document split its references into normative and
informative? 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].
the references are indeed split into normative and informational
references. there is no down-rev reference.
(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 says 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 are no such sections.
(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.
One physical network can carry multiple logical networks. Moreover,
we can use multiple physical networks at the same time in a
host. In
that environment, end hosts might have multiple IP addresses and be
required to use them selectively. Without an appropriate source/
destination address selection mechanism, the host will experience
some trouble in communication. RFC 3484 defines both the source and
destination address selection algorithms, but the multi-prefix
environment considered here needs additional rules beyond those of
the default operation. This document describes the possible
problems
that end hosts could encounter in an environment with multiple
logical networks.
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 problem statement and requirements have been thoroughly discussed
and seem to have a reasonably strong consensus. The proposed solution
is not yet agreed to.
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?
idnits 2.05.02
tmp/draft-ietf-v6ops-addr-select-ps-02.txt:
tmp/draft-ietf-v6ops-addr-select-ps-02.txt(327): Found possible IPv6
address 'db8:8000:1::0' in position 4; this doesn't match RFC3849's
suggested 2001:DB8::/32 address range or RFC4193's Unique Local
Address range FC00::/7.
--> db8:8000:1::EUI64, which is closed from the Internet.
^
tmp/draft-ietf-v6ops-addr-select-ps-02.txt(680): Appendix start:
Appendix A. Appendix. Revision History.
Appendix start: Appendix A. Appendix. Revision History
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:
- ------------------------------------------------------------------------
- ----
** There are 1 instance of lines with non-RFC3849-compliant IPv6
addresses
in the document. If these are example addresses, they should
be changed.
Miscellaneous warnings:
- ------------------------------------------------------------------------
- ----
No issues found here.
Checking references for intended status: Proposed Standard
- ------------------------------------------------------------------------
- ----
(See RFC 3967 for information about using normative references to
lower-maturity documents in RFCs)
== Outdated reference: draft-ietf-v6ops-nap has been published as
RFC 4864
-- Obsolete informational reference (is this intentional?): RFC 3041
(Obsoleted by RFC 4941)
Summary: 1 error (**), 1 warning (==), 1 comment (--).
- ------------------------------------------------------------------------
- --------
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
iD8DBQFHVIFxbjEdbHIsm0MRAhB9AJ4m5ga/UPuL1Gt/Hz8MaPNHfaKZZwCg+Epl
sh1Dw7QJgzvfw1iQeW7VyN0=
=vE2T
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----