Subject: [v6ops] Shepherd write-up for draft-ietf-v6ops-slaac-renum

From: Owen DeLong <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 3 Jul 2020 22:58:56 -0700

This has been submitted per RFC4858 section 3.1

(1) This draft is aimed at being an Informational RFC. Informational is the appropriate type because
	it provides both a problem statement and possible operational mitigations and associated
	constraints.

(2) IESG Approval Announcement

Technical Summary:
This is a companion document to https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-v6ops-cpe-slaac-renum/ <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-v6ops-cpe-slaac-renum/>.
This document provides advice for the operator side of the process whereas the other document
provides advice for the client or CPE side of the process. Together, both documents attempt to
improve the user experience when unplanned SLAAC renumbering events occur.

Document Quality:

The document so far has been approved by the V6OPS working group (successful working group
last call). The document does not specify new protocol, but rather provides guidance regarding how
to override the default values of some parameters in the existing protocols.

Personnel

Owen DeLong is the Document Shepherd
Fred Baker and Ron Bonica are the WG chairs
Warren Kumari is the responsible AD.

(3) Shepherd’s review

Prior to becoming shepherd, I was significantly involved in reviewing each revision of the document
and provided feedback and contributed improvements at each step. I have been active in the
debate of this I-D on the working group mailing list. This version of the document is ready for
publication. 

(4) Shepherd’s concerns

I have no concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed.

The document (along side its companion document https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-v6ops-cpe-slaac-renum/ <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-v6ops-cpe-slaac-renum/>
has received substantial comments from the working group. Author has been very responsive
and incorporated feedback very well. 

(5) Special Reviews Needed

I do not believe any special reviews are necessary for this document.

(6) Shepherd’s Concerns or issues

I have no concerns or issues with the document in its current form.

(7) IPR disclosures

There are no relevant IPR disclosures in this document. The document does not touch on
any technologies other than those in existing RFCs developed within the IETF.

(8) IPRs referencing this document

No IPR disclosures have been filed referencing this document and for the reasons stated in the
previous section, it is very unlikely one would be filed.

(9) WG consensus strength

This document had good participation and discussion in the working group and received fairly
broad support both prior to and during WG last call.

(10) Dissent

None

(11) ID nits

No nits found (once I got past the fact that the NITS interface via URL doesn’t cope well
with this draft for reasons beyond me). Feeding it the raw text worked fine.