On 26 Oct 2012, at 12:04 , The IESG wrote:
The IESG has received a request from the IPv6 Operations WG (v6ops)
to consider the following document:
- 'Implementation Advice for IPv6 Router Advertisement Guard (RA-Guard)'
<draft-ietf-v6ops-ra-guard-implementation-04.txt>
as Best Current Practice
The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks,
and solicits final comments on this action.
Starting IETF Last Call seems premature for this document.
(Perhaps there was some slip of the keyboard somewhere ??)
1) Conflicts with active work items of the IPv6 WG
This I-D has the effect of over-riding parts of the
standards-track IPv6 specifications (e.g. by making
currently valid/legal (if unusual) IPv6 packets illegal
and instructing RA-Guard implementations to drop such
currently valid/legal IPv6 packets).
My understanding is that the 2 proposals to update the
IPv6 specifications (directly related to this document)
are current work items of the IETF 6MAN WG, but (as near
as I can tell) those documents have not even begun
WG Last Call within the IPv6 WG.
2) Previously agreed document edits are not present
in the document version referenced by the IESG
announcement.
Prior discussion with the document author, both on the
v6ops mailing list (e.g. various notes in June 2012, e.g.,
<http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/v6ops/current/msg13258.html>)
and also off-list, indicated that he had agreed to move the
relevant IPv6 protocol update documents from "Informative"
references to "Normative" references, specifically the
draft-ietf-6man-* versions of these 2 references of the
IESG cited document:
[I-D.gont-6man-oversized-header-chain]
Gont, F. and V. Manral, "Security and Interoperability
Implications of Oversized IPv6 Header Chains",
draft-gont-6man-oversized-header-chain-01 (work in
progress), April 2012.
[I-D.gont-6man-nd-extension-headers]
Gont, F., "Security Implications of the Use of IPv6
Extension Headers with IPv6 Neighbor Discovery",
draft-gont-6man-nd-extension-headers-02 (work in
progress), January 2012.
3) Email from document author indicates this document
will be updated soon.
Separately, overnight private email from the author (received
by me prior to my receipt of this IESG announcement) indicates
that an update to draft-ietf-v6ops-ra-guard-implementation is
imminent. The pending update apparently resolves issue (2)
above.
So it seems to me that this document is not yet ready for
IETF Last Call. Instead, it seems to me that the pending I-D
update needs to occur, a (hopefully quick) review of that
revision within IETF v6ops WG then needs to occur, and (ideally
in parallel) IETF 6MAN WG review (and ideally approval) of the
proposed changes to the IPv6 specifications needs to occur.
LAST)
In the (one hopes unlikely) event that the 6MAN WG is NOT
comfortable with the 2 directly-related proposed IPv6
specification updates, then this document ought not be
published on the IETF standards-track, on grounds that
it specifies packet dropping behaviour inconsistent with
the extant IPv6 specifications.
Yours,
Ran Atkinson