Subject: draft-ietf-v6ops-rfc3330-for-ipv6 to informational

From: Fred Baker <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 3 Dec 2007 13:32:10 -0800

> (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 (--).
- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 
- --------