(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?
A. draft-ietf-6lo-6lobac-05 draft is a 'standards track' document. This
intended status is indicated in the document header. Since it is defining
ipv6-over-foo adaptation layer, it is standard track.
(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:
Master-Slave/Token-Passing (MS/TP) is a medium access control method
for the RS-485 physical layer, which is used extensively in building
automation networks. This specification defines the frame format for
transmission of IPv6 packets and the method of forming link-local and
statelessly autoconfigured IPv6 addresses on MS/TP networks in the context
of 6loWPAN specifications ( RFC4944, RFC6282, RFC6775). MS/TP devices are
typically based on low-cost microcontollers with limited processing power
and memory and they form a constrained wired network. A brief overview of
MS/TP is available in ANSI/ASHRE 135-2012 BACNET, Clause 9 (see below):
American Society of Heating, Refrigerating, and Air-
Conditioning Engineers, "BACnet - A Data Communication
Protocol for Building Automation and Control Networks",
ANSI/ASHRAE 135-2012 (Clause 9), March 2013.
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?
A. Due to the nature of MS/TP (wired constraiend network) deployment and its
requirement on compressed header format, the author expressed concerns over
draft-ietf-6man-default-iids restrictions and suggestions for using privacy
addresses as default for link-local Ipv6 addresses.
https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/6lo/current/msg01423.html
Section 6 of the document addresses privacy while forming the forwardable IPv6
address.
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?
A.
The document has been reviewed and discussed by many 6lo experts in the WG
including Carsten Bormann,
Dave Thaler, Samita Chakrabarti, Peter van Der Stock, James Woodyatt, Alex
Petrescue, Geoff Mulligan, Don Sturek etc. - some on-line and some of them
provided comments off-line.
An implementation of lobac exists and they participated on a 6lo plugtest in
Yokohama IETF94. Since the document is closely co-ordinated with ASHER/BACNET
Building networks SDO, it is assumed that many other vendors will adopt the
solution once it is a published RFC.
Personnel:
Who is the Document Shepherd? Who is the Responsible Area Director?
Document Shepherd: Samita Chakrabarti, Responsible Area Director: Suresh
Krishnan
(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.
A. Document shepherd has reviewed the -05 version of the document. The document
is ready for publication.
(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of
the reviews that have been performed?
A. The document is well written with lots of explanation (even code) at the
Appendix.
(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.
A. Not applicable.
(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.
A. It has been reviewed by a number of WG members and the shepherd. It is
ready to advance.
A note to the Area Director: One of teh co-author's email address
(jerald.p.martocci@jci.com) is currently bouncing emails. The document editor
Kerry Lynn has been informed about the issue.The recommendation to the editor
is to revise the draft with correct email address.
Shepherd's minor editorial comment on section 5 second paragraph: "Add a line
specifying that GHC support capability
among the MS/TP nodes are out of scope of this document". The author will
update the text in the next revision.
(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?
A. No IPR disclosures had been filed by the co-authors of the document.
Confirmation with each author is
in progress.
(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If so,
summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures. A. No
(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?
A. The working group as a whole understands and agrees with the progress of
this document.
(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.)
A. No.
(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.
No issues found.
(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such
as the MIB Doctor, media type,
and URI type reviews.
A. Not Applicable.
(13) Have all references within this document been identified as either
normative or informative?
A. Yes.
(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?
A. No.
(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.
A. None.
(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.
No. This document will not update any base 6lo documents or existing RFCs.
(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).
A. The document does not request any IANA change.
(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.
A. Not Applicable
(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.(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?
A. Not Applicable