idnits 2.17.1 draft-troan-6man-ndpioiana-01.txt: Checking boilerplate required by RFC 5378 and the IETF Trust (see https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info): ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/1id-guidelines.txt: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist : ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ** The document seems to lack a Security Considerations section. == The 'Updates: ' line in the draft header should list only the _numbers_ of the RFCs which will be updated by this document (if approved); it should not include the word 'RFC' in the list. Miscellaneous warnings: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == The copyright year in the IETF Trust and authors Copyright Line does not match the current year -- The document date (September 19, 2017) is 2410 days in the past. Is this intentional? Checking references for intended status: Proposed Standard ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- (See RFCs 3967 and 4897 for information about using normative references to lower-maturity documents in RFCs) == Unused Reference: 'RFC2119' is defined on line 126, but no explicit reference was found in the text Summary: 1 error (**), 0 flaws (~~), 3 warnings (==), 1 comment (--). Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about the items above. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 Network Working Group O. Troean 3 Internet-Draft Cisco Systems 4 Updates: rfc4861 (if approved) September 19, 2017 5 Intended status: Standards Track 6 Expires: March 23, 2018 8 IPv6 ND PIO Flags IANA considerations 9 draft-troan-6man-ndpioiana-01 11 Abstract 13 The Prefix Information Option in the IPv6 Neighbor Discovery Router 14 Advertisement defines an 8-bit flag field with two flags defined and 15 the remaining 6 bits reservered (Reserved1). RFC 6275 has defined a 16 new flag from this field without creating a IANA registry or updating 17 RFC 4861. The purpose of this document is to request IANA to create 18 a new registry for the PIO flags to avoid potential conflict in the 19 use of these flags. 21 Status of This Memo 23 This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the 24 provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. 26 Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering 27 Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute 28 working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- 29 Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. 31 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months 32 and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any 33 time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference 34 material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." 36 This Internet-Draft will expire on March 23, 2018. 38 Copyright Notice 40 Copyright (c) 2017 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the 41 document authors. All rights reserved. 43 This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal 44 Provisions Relating to IETF Documents 45 (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of 46 publication of this document. Please review these documents 47 carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect 48 to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must 49 include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of 50 the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as 51 described in the Simplified BSD License. 53 Table of Contents 55 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 56 2. Current Prefix Information Option flags . . . . . . . . . . . 2 57 3. Updates to RFC4861 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 58 4. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 59 5. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 60 5.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 61 5.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 62 Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 64 1. Introduction 66 The Prefix Information Option in the IPv6 Neighbor Discovery Router 67 Advertisement defines an 8-bit flag field with two flags defined and 68 the remaining 6 bits reservered (Reserved1). RFC 6275 has defined a 69 new flag from this field without creating a IANA registry or updating 70 RFC 4861. The purpose of this document is to request IANA to create 71 a new registry for the PIO flags to avoid potential conflict in the 72 use of these flags. 74 2. Current Prefix Information Option flags 76 Currently, the NDP Prefix Information Option contains the following 77 one-bit flags defined in published RFCs: 79 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 80 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 81 |L|A|R|Reserved1| 82 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 84 Figure 1 86 L - On-link Flag [RFC4861] 88 A - Autonomous Address Configuration Flag [RFC4861] 90 R - Router Address Agent Flag [RFC6275] 92 Reserved1 - Reserved 94 3. Updates to RFC4861 96 This document updates RFC4861 with the new IANA Considerations 97 section specified below. 99 4. IANA Considerations 101 The IANA is requested to create a new registry for IPv6 ND Prefix 102 Information Option flags. This should include the current flags in 103 the PIO option. The format for the registry is: 105 +---------------+---------------------------------+-----------+ 106 | RA Option Bit | Description | Reference | 107 +---------------+---------------------------------+-----------+ 108 | 0 | L - On-link Flag | [RFC4861] | 109 | 1 | A - Autonomous Address | [RFC4861] | 110 | | Configuration Flag | | 111 | 2 | R - Router Address Flag | [RFC6275] | 112 +---------------+---------------------------------+-----------+ 114 Figure 2 116 The assignment of new flags in the PIO option header require 117 standards action or IESG approval. 119 The registry for these flags should be added to: 120 http://www.iana.org/assignments/icmpv6-parameters 122 5. References 124 5.1. Normative References 126 [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate 127 Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, 128 DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997, 129 . 131 [RFC4861] Narten, T., Nordmark, E., Simpson, W., and H. Soliman, 132 "Neighbor Discovery for IP version 6 (IPv6)", RFC 4861, 133 DOI 10.17487/RFC4861, September 2007, 134 . 136 5.2. Informative References 138 [RFC6275] Perkins, C., Ed., Johnson, D., and J. Arkko, "Mobility 139 Support in IPv6", RFC 6275, DOI 10.17487/RFC6275, July 140 2011, . 142 Author's Address 144 Ole Troean 145 Cisco Systems 146 Philip Pedersens vei 1 147 Lysaker 1366 148 Norway 150 Email: ot@cisco.com