Shepherd writeup
draft-ietf-6lo-blemesh-10

As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document 
Shepherd Write-Up.
Changes are expected over time. This version is dated 24 February 2012.

(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?
Shepherd response:  Proposed Standard.
The document enables IPv6 mesh over Bluetooth Low Energy links (based on BLE
IPSP profile). The document mandates and in some cases recommends certain IPv6
procedures.

b. Why is this the proper type of RFC?
Rsp: 'Standards Track' document is needed to mandate and recommend certain
handling (such as some aspects of Neighbor Discovery, Header Compression etc).

c. Is this type of RFC indicated in the title page header?
Rsp: Yes

(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:

Shepherd response: 
Technical Summary

    This document enables IPv6 mesh over BLE networks. For enabling IPv6 mesh,
    the document specifies the use of Neighbor discovery, header compression
    and address autoconfiguration in context to multi-hop BLE links. The
    document utilizes BLE's IPSP profile support which can be used for IPv6
    communication on top of BLE links. Note however that the use of routing
    protocol is required for routing the packets and choosing appropriate
    parent set etc and is beyond the scope of this document.

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?

Shepherd response: 
 This draft has been discussed by 6lo working group and some of the BLE SIG
 experts.
- Several WG participants provided feedback namely,
    a. Bilhanan Silverajan who pointed out that the draft refers to an old BLE
    spec of 4.1 and that another spec has already superseded and should be
    used.
    b. Pascal Thubert pointed out the impact of RFC 6775 updates on this
    document and suggested the updates.
    c. Rahul Jadhav pointed out that the registration of link-local addresses
    cannot be mandated and there are reasons to send packets without header
    compression in some cases. Similarly the mandate to use multihop DAD was
    discussed and removed.
    All the feedbacks were handled and subsequent updates reviewed/accepted by
    the reviewers.
- version 06 was the final version reviewed by the shepherd, which resulted in
  ver-07. Primary changes were related to consistent application of EARO in
  place of ARO and suggested use of a call flow diagram to explain the node
  joining procedure.

With these reviews and discussions -07 is ready for IESG review.

Document Quality

  Are there existing implementations of the protocol? Have a 
  significant number of vendors indicated their plan to 
  implement the specification? 
Shepherd response: 
The authors have a prototype implementation but there is no production
implementation.

   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?
Shepherd response: 
Bilhanan Silverajan, Pascal Thubert, and Rahul Jadhav have reviewed and
provided comments and the drafts were subsequently updated. The review
encompassed several rounds.  Yong-Geun Hong and Houjianqiang (Derek) have
reviewed and found no 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?
Shepherd response: Not Applicable

Personnel

Document Shepherd: Rahul Jadhav
Responsible Area Director: Erik Kline

(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.
Shepherd response: 
I have reviewed the document and my comments are addressed in version 07 that I
think is ready for IESG review.


(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or
breadth of the reviews that have been performed?
Shepherd response: No concerns


(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.
Shepherd response:
The document extends RFC 7668 for using IPv6 mesh primitives based on BLE IPSP
profile. Mark Powell from Bluetooth SIG and an expert BLE (linux kernel)
implementor Alain Michaud had reviewed the document. The document may not need
a review from any other IETF directorate as part of the IESG processing.


(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.
Shepherd response: No concerns

(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.
Shepherd response: All the authors have confirmed, no IPRs found.

(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document?
If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR
disclosures.
Shepherd response: Yes, all the authors have explicitly made a disclosure.
There are no IPRs on the draft as of now.

(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?   
Shepherd response: There have been 3 active comment providers and 2 other WG
participants (all from different backgrounds) who indicated that they have
reviewed the document and believe that it is ready for IESG submission. There
have been several voices indicating usefulness of the draft with no one voicing
any discontent.

(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.) 
Shepherd response: No

(11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this
document. (See https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts
Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be
thorough.
Shepherd response: The idnits tools showed 5 warnings and 2 comments.
 == The copyright year in the IETF Trust and authors Copyright Line does not
     match the current year

  -- The document date (December 14, 2019) is 58 days in the past.  Is this
     intentional?

 == Missing Reference: 'RFC 7416' is mentioned on line 392, but not defined
     [Shepherd: The RFC is defined in the refs section]

  == Unused Reference: 'RFC7668' is defined on line 614, but no explicit
     reference was found in the text
     [Shepherd: The RFC is referenced]

  == Unused Reference: 'RFC7416' is defined on line 643, but no explicit
     reference was found in the text.
     [Shepherd: The RFC is referenced]

  -- Possible downref: Non-RFC (?) normative reference: ref. 'IPSP'
     [Shepherd: IPSP spec is provided as normative ref and the ref is present
     in appropriate section]

Summary: 0 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 5 warnings (==), 2 comments (--).

(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review
criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.
Shepherd response: Not Applicable

(13) Have all references within this document been identified as
either normative or informative?
Shepherd response: 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?
Shepherd response: None

(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. 
Shepherd response:
The only downref listed is about IPSP. I found that the ref is included in the
normative section as it needs to be read/understood before the implementation
based on this draft could be handled.

(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.
Shepherd response: There are no updates to 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).
Shepherd response: No IANA registries are updated by the document.

(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.
Shepherd response: No IANA registries are updated.

(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.
Shepherd response: Not applicable as there are no formal language constructs in
the document.
Back