Protocol Action: 'Distributing Address Selection Policy using DHCPv6' to Proposed Standard (draft-ietf-6man-addr-select-opt-13.txt)

The IESG <iesg-secretary@ietf.org> Wed, 09 October 2013 20:41 UTC

Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: The IESG <iesg-secretary@ietf.org>
To: IETF-Announce <ietf-announce@ietf.org>
Subject: Protocol Action: 'Distributing Address Selection Policy using DHCPv6' to Proposed Standard (draft-ietf-6man-addr-select-opt-13.txt)
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Message-ID: <20131009204133.15919.94972.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Wed, 09 Oct 2013 13:41:33 -0700
Cc: 6man chair <6man-chairs@tools.ietf.org>, 6man mailing list <ipv6@ietf.org>, RFC Editor <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>
Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org

The IESG has approved the following document:
- 'Distributing Address Selection Policy using DHCPv6'
  (draft-ietf-6man-addr-select-opt-13.txt) as Proposed Standard

This document is the product of the IPv6 Maintenance Working Group.

The IESG contact persons are Brian Haberman and Ted Lemon.

A URL of this Internet Draft is:
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-6man-addr-select-opt/




Technical Summary:

   RFC 6724 defines default address selection mechanisms for IPv6 that
   allow nodes to select an appropriate address when faced with multiple
   source and/or destination addresses to choose between.  The RFC 6724
   allowed for the future definition of methods to administratively
   configure the address selection policy information.  This document
   defines a new DHCPv6 option for such configuration, allowing a site
   administrator to distribute address selection policy overriding the
   default address selection parameters and policy table, and thus
   control the address selection behavior of nodes in their site.

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?

  Nothing in particular.

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?

  Ray Hunter has done a thorough review of the document,
  in addition has the 6man chairs done a 'chair's review' of 
  the document.

  The document has also been through a last call in the DHC WG.

Personnel:

  Ole Troan is the Document Shepherd. 
  Brian Haberman is the Responsible Area Director.

RFC Editor Note

In the IANA considerations section, please make the following change:

OLD:
http://www.iana.org/assignments/dhcpv6-parameters/dhcpv6-parameters.xml

NEW:
https://www.iana.org/assignments/dhcpv6-parameters

Protocol Action: 'Distributing Address Selection … The IESG