Subject: draft-ietf-v6ops-addcon to informational

From: Fred Baker <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 3 Dec 2007 13:55:00 -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?

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