[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
draft-ietf-v6ops-addr-select-req 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
statement 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, I have verified this.
(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 have multiple logical networks. In that
case, an end-host has multiple IP addresses. (e.g., in the IPv4-IPv6
dual-stack environment, in a site that uses both ULA [RFC4193] and
global scope addresses or in a site connected to multiple upstream
IPv6 networks) For such a host, RFC 3484 [RFC3484] defines default
address-selection rules for the source and destination addresses.
Today, the RFC 3484 mechanism is widely implemented in major OSs.
However, we and others have found that in many sites the default
address-selection rules are not appropriate for the network
structure. PS [I-D.ietf-v6ops-addr-select-ps] lists problematic
cases that resulted from incorrect address selection.
Though RFC 3484 made the address-selection behavior of a host
configurable, typical users cannot make use of that because of the
complexity of the mechanism and lack of knowledge about their
network
topologies. Therefore, an address-selection autoconfiguration
mechanism is necessary, especially for unmanaged hosts of typical
users.
This document contains requirements for address-selection mechanisms
that enable hosts to perform appropriate address selection
automatically.
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?
This is not a protocol. It is a requirements statement for an
operational policy procedure. RFC 3484 is implemented in several OS's.
idnits 2.05.02
tmp/draft-ietf-v6ops-addr-select-req-04.txt:
tmp/draft-ietf-v6ops-addr-select-req-04.txt(328): 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:
- ------------------------------------------------------------------------
- ----
No issues found here.
Miscellaneous warnings:
- ------------------------------------------------------------------------
- ----
No issues found here.
Checking references for intended status: Informational
- ------------------------------------------------------------------------
- ----
No issues found here.
No nits found.
- ------------------------------------------------------------------------
- --------
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
iD8DBQFHVIOubjEdbHIsm0MRAuugAJ9iAkke2FshqAM50ttnrFNx+PczPACg4Opd
Cd6ENfxvwiTJAAhTZOT/qXs=
=d9R+
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----