Subject: Proto Questionnaire for: <draft-ietf-ipngwg-icmp-name-lookups-15.txt>

From: ext Bob Hinden <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2006 21:14:55 +0200

Questionnaire below.  Bob Hinden will be the shepherding chair.

Bob Hinden & Brian Haberman
IPv6 chairs

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

>    1.a) Have the chairs personally reviewed this version of the  
> Internet
>         Draft (ID), and in particular, do they believe this ID is  
> ready
>         to forward to the IESG for publication?
>

Yes.

>    1.b) Has the document had adequate review from both key WG members
>         and key non-WG members?  Do you have any concerns about the
>         depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed?
>

Yes.  This document has been reviewed and commented on by many people  
in the working group.

>
>    1.c) Do you have concerns that the document needs more review  
> from a
>         particular (broader) perspective (e.g., security, operational
>         complexity, someone familiar with AAA, etc.)?
>

No.

>    1.d) Do you have any specific concerns/issues with this document  
> that
>         you believe the ADs and/or IESG should be aware of?  For
>         example, perhaps you are uncomfortable with certain parts  
> of the
>         document, or have concerns whether there really is a need for
>         it.  In any event, if your issues have been discussed in  
> the WG
>         and the WG has indicated it that it still wishes to advance  
> the
>         document, detail those concerns in the write-up.
>

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?
>

The working group as a whole understands and agrees with 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 to the Responsible Area Director.
>

No.

>    1.g) Have the chairs verified that the document adheres to all  
> of the
>         ID nits? (see http://www.ietf.org/ID-Checklist.html).
>

Yes.

>
>    1.h) Is the document split into normative and informative  
> references?
>         Are there normative references to IDs, where the IDs are not
>         also ready for advancement or are otherwise in an unclear  
> state?
>         (note here that the RFC editor will not publish an RFC with
>         normative references to IDs, it will delay publication  
> until all
>         such IDs are also ready for publication as RFCs.)
>

Yes.  All normative references are either RFC or in the RFC-editor  
queue.

>
>    1.i) For Standards Track and BCP documents, the IESG approval
>         announcement includes a write-up section with the following
>         sections:
>
>         *    Technical Summary
>
>         *    Working Group Summary
>
>         *    Protocol Quality
>

This was submitted for experimental.  However,

Technical Summary

    This document describes a protocol for asking an IPv6 node to supply
    certain network information, such as its hostname or fully-qualified
    domain name.  IPv6 implementation experience has shown that direct
    queries for a hostname are useful, and a direct query mechanism for
    other information has been found useful in serverless environments
    and for debugging.

Working Group Summary

    The latest specification does differ from what is currently  
deployed.
    Reviews revealed that the multicast prefix used by the Node Info
    Queries does not conform to the requirements of RFC 3307.  The
    editors corrected the oversight within the specification to ensure
    proper operation over the long-term.  Those who have already
    implemented the protocol agreed with the change and plan on
    updating their code to conform to the new multicast prefix.

    Other minor changes were made to address deprecated functionality
    that no longer needs to be supported (e.g. IPv4-compatible addresses
    and site-local addresses).

Protocol Quality

    IPv6 Node Information Queries have been widely implemented in the  
ping6
    program in the KAME (<http://www.kame.net>), USAGI, and other IPv6
    implementations.  It is proved to be very useful when
    debugging problems or when bringing up IPv6 service where there  
isn't
    global routing or DNS name services available.  IPv6's large auto-
    configured addresses make debugging network problems and bringing up
    IPv6 service difficult without these mechanisms.

--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
[email-masked]
Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------