From nobody Sun Jun 12 06:58:36 2016 Return-Path: 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 56FBD12D1B8; Sun, 12 Jun 2016 06:58:35 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.699 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.699 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id mbAeJUa4I_Cj; Sun, 12 Jun 2016 06:58:33 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-wm0-x230.google.com (mail-wm0-x230.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c09::230]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0AFDA12D1D1; Sun, 12 Jun 2016 06:58:33 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-wm0-x230.google.com with SMTP id r190so10745659wmr.0; Sun, 12 Jun 2016 06:58:32 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=2DXBSn5lGwUQVD4IYhC0R9trRjHSBVAcb56sbKH1WKo=; b=LXkqLfYHuD82tDJFhPAyfX3ZmLteetuTIqAFJ+KJdnZtkCRvFAhLpzXqdpXKYZJEha /0mK22Z03vunGjL9NR3Bjv7C7CdAxdmbsfk7MyOzRsB/HUbalKJHBr1gVle5zFJxM0/U zCHB3dRx+4NwlZl2f2ArlrMhMWlXRmmSv7rOKxpEPl4seLvTd1Jm/SkK6g60hxcJZjb2 hWUGo5B9aD0bi7MqLAXTpOreOQxh5jIFLZi1DlkmpkwLt/6ax31EgKFc9XqVlUXrGfu4 /bIcwCgPPACz3DEti/2Hhh+rjA/KoKlZx/ndlxWpyPcoftHB0DSe1ABffcBpnUllca49 7dAA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=2DXBSn5lGwUQVD4IYhC0R9trRjHSBVAcb56sbKH1WKo=; b=D2dcK/CVGCknJbo4nbnxQab0W3U1SBtjjDhsfVtKb6aT/v/Xyy0VlbX0jlB2aR44Mi gKT6VbxdvTI9weO6y0mUC11PsihkImIYxtX5F62IEdhiUZA702xMoftaMFgxAe5PQcnV wFkuBcPJtOGsO4S4BEwLkdFCYvqDNqvZqfJpF+pD1SiEjuSh0ygkcCKOQB36tEKqQaSS GWabcyjrE4ejMmapKJqFVEg8HDEpDCl7vUgYrOR7psFxxUvTmL3kQQ/ultqK8od3UaY1 0ykex3jNBW3V2k8YSWgJ3JmHYATUfrW5TQ3bD89OVbwUnXM40zf+nbOIXKyGxJGqOJZH po8w== X-Gm-Message-State: ALyK8tLJvU6YCRIgMX/4HVM9WrBFDETqRWsmtxJ4NpU4N0Cxruccd3/G0S0YBT3LEZ+O1SjtBV1DCeR3o0wzJw== X-Received: by 10.194.136.72 with SMTP id py8mr5549341wjb.126.1465739911533; Sun, 12 Jun 2016 06:58:31 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.195.4.36 with HTTP; Sun, 12 Jun 2016 06:58:30 -0700 (PDT) From: Jean-Michel Combes Date: Sun, 12 Jun 2016 15:58:30 +0200 Message-ID: To: iesg-secretary@ietf.org Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=20cf30549cadc29aa40535152a2f Archived-At: Cc: "int-ads@tools.ietf.org" , draft-ietf-savi-mix , SAVI Mailing List , "savi-chairs@tools.ietf.org" Subject: [savi] Publication request for "SAVI for Mixed Address Assignment Methods Scenario" (draft-ietf-savi-mix-11) X-BeenThere: savi@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list List-Id: Mailing list for the SAVI working group at IETF List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 12 Jun 2016 13:58:35 -0000 --20cf30549cadc29aa40535152a2f Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Dear Secretary, This is a request to publish draft-ietf-savi-mix-11 as Standard track RFC. Please find below the Shepherd Document write-up. Thanks in advance. Best regards, JMC. (1) The type of RFC requested is Proposed Standard. This is the proper type because this document describes specifications for a mechanism being implemented and deployed. The type of RFC is indicated in the title page header. (2) Here is the Document Announcement Write-Up, Technical Summary: In networks that use multiple techniques for address assignment, the appropriate Source Address Validation Improvement (SAVI) methods must be used to prevent spoofing of addresses assigned by each such technique. This document reviews how multiple SAVI methods can coexist in a single SAVI device and collisions are resolved when the same binding entry is discovered by two or more methods. Working Group Summary: There was nothing noteworthy in the WG process. Document Quality: This document has been thorough reviewed and a dedicated language review was done by one of the co-authors, Joel Halpern, native English speaker. Personnel: The document shepherd is Jean-Michel Combes (jeanmichel.combes@gmail.com). = The Responsible Area Director is Suresh Krishnan (suresh.krishnan@ericsson.com)= . (3) The review of this document performed by the Document Shepherd includes= : - Comments regarding technical clarifications - Comments regarding editorial modifications (e.g., references) - A check of the English level (even if English is not the mother tongue of the Document Shepherd). The Responsible Area Director was always aware about the exchanges between the Document Shepherd and the authors during the review (4) The Document Shepherd has no concern about the deph or breadth of the reviews that have been performed. (5) The document needn=E2=80=99t review from a particular or from broader perspective. (6) The Document Shepherd has no specific concerns or issue with this document. (7) Each author confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR disclosures required for full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79 have been filed. (8) No IPR disclosure has been filed that references this document (9) The WG consensus behind this document is mainly based of the agreement of a small group with others being silent. (10) Nobody threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent. (11) The check done with ID Nits tool is not successful: there is one error (cf. point 15). (12) The document doesn=E2=80=99t need to meet any required format review c= riteria (13) All references within this document have been identified as either normative or informative but, as noted by the ID Nits check (cf. above), a normative reference is in fact an Informational RFC. (14) There are no references to documents that are not ready for advancement or otherwise are in an unclear state. (15) There is one downward normative reference (cf. ID Nits check). This normative reference (i.e., [RFC7039]) should become informative reference. (16) The publication of this document will not change the status of any existing RFC. (17) There is no request for an action from the IANA. (18) There is no request for an action from the IANA. (19) There is no formal language inside this document expecting a specific review from the Document Shepherd. --20cf30549cadc29aa40535152a2f Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Dear Secretary,

This is a= request to publish draft-ietf-savi-mix-11<= /span> as Standard track RFC. Please find below the Shepherd Document write= -up.

Thanks in advance.

Best regards,

JMC.

(1) The type of RFC requested is Proposed Standard. = This is the proper type because this document describes specifications for a mechan= ism being implemented and deployed. The type of RFC is indicated in the title p= age header.

=C2=A0

(2) Here is the Document Announcement Write-Up,

<= p class=3D"MsoNormal">

Technical Summary:

In networks that use multiple techniques for address assignment, the appropriate Source Address Validation Improvement (SAVI) methods must be used to prevent spoofing of addresses assigned by each such technique. This document reviews how multiple SAVI methods can coexist in a single SAVI device and collisions are resolved when the same binding entry = is discovered by two or more methods.


Working Group Summary:

There was nothing noteworthy in the WG process.

<= p class=3D"MsoNormal">

Document Quality:

This document has been thorough reviewed and a dedic= ated language review was done by one of the co-authors, Joel Halpern, native Eng= lish speaker.


Per= sonnel:

The= document shepherd is Jean-Michel Combes (jeanmichel.combes@gmail.com). The Responsible Area Director is Suresh Krishnan = (suresh.krishnan@ericsson.c= om).

=C2=A0

(3) The review of this document performed by the Doc= ument Shepherd includes:

- Comments regarding technical clarifications

- Comments regarding editorial modifications (e.g., references)

- A check of the English level (even if English is n= ot the mother tongue of the Document Shepherd).

The Responsible Area Director was always aware about= the exchanges between the Document Shepherd and the authors during the review

=C2=A0

(4) The Document Shepherd has no concern about the d= eph or breadth of the reviews that have been performed.

=C2=A0

(5) The document needn=E2=80=99t review from a parti= cular or from broader perspective.

=C2=A0

(6) The Document Shepherd has no specific concerns o= r issue with this document.

=C2=A0

(7) Each author confirmed that any and all appropria= te IPR disclosures required for full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and= BCP 79 have been filed.

=C2=A0

(8) No IPR disclosure has been filed that references= this document

=C2=A0

(9) The WG consensus behind this document is mainly = based of the agreement of a small group with others being silent.

=C2=A0

(10) Nobody threatened an appeal or otherwise indica= ted extreme discontent.

=C2=A0

(11) The check done with ID Nits tool is not success= ful: there is one error (cf. point 15).

=C2=A0

(12) The document doesn=E2=80=99t need to meet any r= equired format review criteria

=C2=A0

(13) All references within this document have been identified as either normative or informative but, as noted by the ID Nits check (cf. above), a normative reference is in fact an Informational RFC.

=C2=A0

(14) There are no references to documents that are n= ot ready for advancement or otherwise are in an unclear state.

=C2=A0

(15) There is one downward normative reference (cf. ID Nits check). This normative refere= nce (i.e., [RFC7039]) should become informative reference.

=C2=A0

(16) The publication of this document will not chang= e the status of any existing RFC.

=C2=A0

(17) There is no request for an action from the IANA= .

=C2=A0

(18) There is no request for an action from the IANA= .

=C2=A0

(19) There is no formal language inside this documen= t expecting a specific review from the Document Shepherd.

=C2=A0



--20cf30549cadc29aa40535152a2f--