Subject: Protocol Action: 'Gratuitous Neighbor Discovery: Creating Neighbor Cache Entries on First-Hop Routers' to Proposed Standard (draft-ietf-6man-grand-07.txt)

From: The IESG <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 20 Jul 2021 07:13:35 -0700

The IESG has approved the following document:
- 'Gratuitous Neighbor Discovery: Creating Neighbor Cache Entries on
   First-Hop Routers'
  (draft-ietf-6man-grand-07.txt) as Proposed Standard

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

The IESG contact persons are Erik Kline and Éric Vyncke.

A URL of this Internet Draft is:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-6man-grand/

Technical Summary

   Neighbor Discovery (RFC4861) is used by IPv6 nodes to determine the
   link-layer addresses of neighboring nodes as well as to discover and
   maintain reachability information.  This document updates RFC4861 to
   allow routers to proactively create a Neighbor Cache entry when a new
   IPv6 address is assigned to a node.  It also updates RFC4861 and
   recommends nodes to send unsolicited Neighbor Advertisements upon
   assigning a new IPv6 address.  The proposed change will minimize the
   delay and packet loss when a node initiates connections to an off-
   link destination from a new IPv6 address.

Working Group Summary

   The document had active discussion in the w.g. and there is a strong
   consensus to advance it.

   The discussion spawned a side discussion about security and Neighbor Discovery, but
   that is not related to this document, nor should it hold it up.

   Update:   After submitting to the IESG, the Area Directors requested
   that this draft be combined with <draft-ietf-v6ops-nd-cache-init>.
   This version of the draft does that.  We did a second working group
   call, V6OPS was cc'ed on the last call.

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?

   It was well reviewed by the w.g., and has gone through two w.g. last
   calls as noted above.

   The document is very clear on what changes it is making to RFC4861,
   show old text and new text.

   A recent Android change implements this draft (https://android-review.googlesource.com/c/platform/packages/modules/NetworkStack/+/1679586).

Personnel

   Bob Hinden is Document Shepherd.
   Erik Kline is Responsible Area Director.