[savi] Publication request for "FCFS SAVI: First-Come First-Serve Source-Address Validation for Locally Assigned IPv6 Addresses" (draft-ietf-savi-fcfs-09)
Jean-Michel Combes <jeanmichel.combes@gmail.com> Thu, 28 April 2011 14:00 UTC
Return-Path: <jeanmichel.combes@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: savi@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: savi@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5A1C5E0715; Thu, 28 Apr 2011 07:00:14 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.558
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.558 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.441, BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_13=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id HvF9vzzxKb8s; Thu, 28 Apr 2011 07:00:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-yi0-f44.google.com (mail-yi0-f44.google.com [209.85.218.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5A76AE0708; Thu, 28 Apr 2011 07:00:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by yic13 with SMTP id 13so1183101yic.31 for <multiple recipients>; Thu, 28 Apr 2011 07:00:12 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to:cc :content-type; bh=hL693lvCBw1o+3jF9cy+PwTwMJ0xpLVbPpsNGOTHYqQ=; b=xcbCJ8KVHlzNzEdtNHfB+cGUkxRqlaV3cDrko+QehULi9E/Hu+8c9r4z21R+XdWUYA Yd7+b0FCT2CoLnF3ySBJl01JqvxPiI0jqqG4KjbqzftoGeBAQmLC79BN99c0R+qRFrHR uQILUWIScNRtgd2xw00UicJA2ZkE+0sZkZRb8=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; b=ujWTt9yAP6fHipXnwqjEylnSHWFqGSDrvePer3bq5whzVhpT8GE4Y+v4Hpkr29/kUd UV54GAnk2O7ZmaaSl0Il4MWkDuvKFFDZMZ0VwVW8GBRKhlwMfSQAFOG6TQfhvYp8TM7s a7IzmIjrmpa0X//eXgxL6sAOEdlScwKuR2aWA=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.236.199.205 with SMTP id x53mr4301460yhn.193.1303999212647; Thu, 28 Apr 2011 07:00:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.147.171.17 with HTTP; Thu, 28 Apr 2011 07:00:12 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2011 16:00:12 +0200
Message-ID: <BANLkTik=RG==9RqgA_MMhUMAK5uZGh3o4w@mail.gmail.com>
From: Jean-Michel Combes <jeanmichel.combes@gmail.com>
To: iesg-secretary@ietf.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Cc: SAVI Mailing List <savi@ietf.org>, savi-chairs@tools.ietf.org
Subject: [savi] Publication request for "FCFS SAVI: First-Come First-Serve Source-Address Validation for Locally Assigned IPv6 Addresses" (draft-ietf-savi-fcfs-09)
X-BeenThere: savi@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Mailing list for the SAVI working group at IETF <savi.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/savi>, <mailto:savi-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/savi>
List-Post: <mailto:savi@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:savi-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/savi>, <mailto:savi-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2011 14:00:14 -0000
Dear Secretary, This is a request to publish draft-ietf-savi-fcfs-09 as a Standard track RFC. Please find below the I-D write-up. Thanks in advance. Best regards. JMC. (1.a) Who is the Document Shepherd for this document? 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? Jean-Michel Combes (jeanmichel.combes@gmail.com) is the Document Shepherd, savi WG co-chair. He has done a review on the document and believes it is ready to be forwarded to IESG 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? The document has had adequate reviews by key WG members.The document shepherd does not have any concerns regarding the depth or breadth of the reviews received. (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? As this document specifies a new security mechanism that could impact legitimate traffic, a review from the Security Directorate should be done. As this document specifies a Neighbor Discovery Protocol (NDP) based mechanism, a review from v6ops WG and/or 6man WG members may be done. (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? There is savi WG consensus behind the document. (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 the Internet-Drafts Checklist 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 shepherd has personally verified that the document satisfies all ID nits. The document does not need MIB doctor review. The document does not contain any media and URI types. (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]. References are split into normative and informative sections. There are no normative references that are downward references. (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 [RFC5226]. 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 an IANA considerations section and no IANA considerations that need to be taken care of. (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 This memo describes FCFS SAVI a mechanism to provide source address validation for IPv6 networks using the First-Come First-Serve principle. The proposed mechanism is intended to complement ingress filtering techniques to provide a finer granularity on the control of the source addresses used. Working Group Summary The normal WG process was followed. The document as it is now, reflects WG consensus. Document Quality The document was thoroughly reviewed by the document contributors, Joel Halpern and Jean-Michel Combes.
- [savi] Publication request for "FCFS SAVI: First-… Jean-Michel Combes