Mesh Link Establishment
draft-kelsey-intarea-mesh-link-establishment-05

(1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? Why is this the proper type of RFC ...

(1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard,
Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? Why is
this the proper type of RFC? Is this type of RFC indicated in the title
page header?

<response to="" (1)="">
i) Type of RFC Requested: Proposed Standard
ii) It is the proper type of RFC because the document describes a
communications protocol
iii) The type of RFC is indicated in the title page header
</response>

(2) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document Announcement
Write-Up. Please provide such a Document Announcement Write-Up. Recent
examples can be found in the "Action" announcements for approved
documents. The approval announcement contains the following sections:

Technical Summary:

Relevant content can frequently be found in the abstract and/or
introduction of the document. If not, this may be an indication that
there are deficiencies in the abstract or introduction.

<response to="" (2)="" technical="" summary="">
MLE is a protocol for link-layer configuration, including link layer
addressing, transmit and receive modes, wake/sleep cycles and security. 
Its use in ad hoc mesh networks is complementary to existing IETF
neighbor discovery protocols, such as IPv6 ND [RFC4861] and NHDP
[RFC6130].  MLE can be used to configure individual links and to
distribute configuration values that are shared across a network. 
Per-link configuration uses one-hop messages with link-local addresses.
Network-wide configuration uses multicasts and requires some form of
multi-hop multicast forwarding.  MLE resolves the issue of determining
two-way link quality between nodes in a lossy network (e.g. wireless) by
allowing a node to periodically multicast an estimate of the quality of
its links.  This allows a node to determine if it has a usable link to a
neighbor without first configuring that link.
</response>

Working Group Summary:

Was there anything in WG process that is worth noting? For example, was
there controversy about particular points or were there decisions where
the consensus was particularly rough?

<response to="" (2)="" working="" group="" summary="">
Due to the general nature of the protocol and its application to link
layer technology, there was no particular WG which suited the draft. It
has been discussed in the 6lowpan and roll WG mailing lists. The only
controversy notable was the use of UDP as the base protocol for MLE.
Some suggested ICMPv6 would be more appropriate tied to RPL messages,
however this had the criticism of narrowing the scope of MLE, which has
been written without any specific IETF protocol in mind.
</response>

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?

<response to="" (2)="" document="" quality="">
There are numerous existing implementations of the protocol as it is
currently being adopted and tested by ZigBee Alliance members involved
in the development of the ZigBee IP stack. There are currently 7
independent vendors implemeting the protocol. Thomas Clausen has
performed a thorough review of draft version 02 and his comments have
been incorporated in version 03 onwards.
</response>

Personnel:

Who is the Document Shepherd? Who is the Responsible Area Director?

<response to="" (2)="" personnel="">
The Document Shepherd is Robert Cragie. The Responsible Area Director is
Ralph Droms.
</response>

(3) Briefly describe the review of this document that was performed by
the Document Shepherd. If this version of the document is not ready for
publication, please explain why the document is being forwarded to the IESG.

<response to="" (3)="">
The Document Shepherd and Responsible Area Director have reviewed the
draft document and have been party to the interoperability testing
events undertaken by the vendors to confirm interoperable implementation
of the protocol and its fitness for purpose.
</response>

(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or
breadth of the reviews that have been performed?

<response to="" (4)="">
The document has been submitted for review on all relevant WG mailing
lists and has had discussion. It has also been through practical
implementations subject to continuous review by the implementors, who
have fed back comments to the author, who has subsequently incorporated
the comments into the latest draft.
</response>

(5) Do portions of the document need review from a particular or from
broader perspective, e.g., security, operational complexity, AAA, DNS,
DHCP, XML, or internationalization? If so, describe the review that took
place.

<response to="" (5)="">
As the protocol describes message security, the Document Shepherd
recommends the document is reviewed by the Security area.
</response>

(6) Describe any specific concerns or issues that the Document Shepherd
has with this document that the Responsible Area Director and/or the
IESG should be aware of? For example, perhaps he or she is uncomfortable
with certain parts of the document, or has concerns whether there really
is a need for it. In any event, if the WG has discussed those issues and
has indicated that it still wishes to advance the document, detail those
concerns here.

<response to="" (6)="">
The Document Shepherd/Responsible Area Director has not indiciated any
specific concerns or issues with the document.
</response>

(7) Has each author confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR
disclosures required for full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78
and BCP 79 have already been filed. If not, explain why?

<response to="" (7)="">
The authors have confirmed that there are no IPR disclosures required
for full conformance with BCP 78 and BCP 79.
</response>

(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If
so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR
disclosures.

<response to="" (8)="">
There are no IPR disclosures that reference the document.
</response>

(9) How solid is the WG consensus behind this document? Does it
represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others being
silent, or does the WG as a whole understand and agree with it?

<response to="" (9)="">
The interested community as a whole understands and agrees with the
document, proven by implementation.
</response>

(10) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme
discontent? If so, please summarise the areas of conflict in separate
email messages to the Responsible Area Director. (It should be in a
separate email because this questionnaire is publicly available.)

<response to="" (10)="">
No.
</response>

(11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this
document. (See http://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts
Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be
thorough.

<response to="" (11)="">
There are no error and no warnings from a verbose nits check of
draft-04. There are comments related to normative references; these
references (AES, CCM and IEEE802154) are correctly stated as normative.
</response>

(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review
criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.

<response to="" (12)="">
No formal review required.
</response>

(13) Have all references within this document been identified as either
normative or informative?

<response to="" (13)="">
Yes.
</response>

(14) Are there normative references to documents that are not ready for
advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state? If such normative
references exist, what is the plan for their completion?

<response to="" (14)="">
All normative references are in a clear state.
</response>

(15) Are there downward normative references references (see RFC 3967)?
If so, list these downward references to support the Area Director in
the Last Call procedure.

<response to="" (15)="">
There are three documents which the nits checker picked up as possible
downward references:

-- Possible downref: Non-RFC (?) normative reference: ref. 'AES'
-- Possible downref: Non-RFC (?) normative reference: ref. 'CCM'
-- Possible downref: Non-RFC (?) normative reference: ref. 'IEEE802154'

All these are complete standard specifications within their appropriate
standards authority (NIST and IEEE)
</response>

(16) Will publication of this document change the status of any existing
RFCs? Are those RFCs listed on the title page header, listed in the
abstract, and discussed in the introduction? If the RFCs are not listed
in the Abstract and Introduction, explain why, and point to the part of
the document where the relationship of this document to the other RFCs
is discussed. If this information is not in the document, explain why
the WG considers it unnecessary.

<response to="" (16)="">
The publication of this document will not affect the status of any
existing RFCs.
</response>

(17) Describe the Document Shepherd's review of the IANA considerations
section, especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the
document. Confirm that all protocol extensions that the document makes
are associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries.
Confirm that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly
identified. Confirm that newly created IANA registries include a
detailed specification of the initial contents for the registry, that
allocations procedures for future registrations are defined, and a
reasonable name for the new registry has been suggested (see RFC 5226).

<response to="" (17)="">
The IANA considerations section clearly identifies the requirements for MLE:

* Additional UDP service name and port assignment
* Security Suites
* Command Types
* TLV Types
* Network Parameters
</response>

(18) List any new IANA registries that require Expert Review for future
allocations. Provide any public guidance that the IESG would find useful
in selecting the IANA Experts for these new registries.

<response to="" (18)="">
MLE requires a Service Name and Port Number that requires Expert Review.
</response>

(19) Describe reviews and automated checks performed by the Document
Shepherd to validate sections of the document written in a formal
language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc.

<response to="" (19)="">
There are no parts of the document written in a formal language.
</response>