Subject: draft-ietf-v6ops-addr-select-ps to informational

From: Fred Baker <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 3 Dec 2007 14:21:37 -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, 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 (--).

- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 
- --------