Skip to main content

Shepherd writeup

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

A1: Draft name: draft-ietf-6lo-dect-ule-05.  Standards track [ Proposed

Why is this the proper type of RFC? Is this type of RFC indicated in the title
page header?

draft-ietf-6lo-dect-ule, "Transmission of IPv6 Packets over DECT Ultra Low
Energy" specifies IPv6 transport over DECT Ultra Low Energy air interface based
on subset of specification defined in RFC4944, RFC6282, RFC6775. The
specification defines the low power optimized IPv6 adaptation layer
specification for addressing model,
 MTU configuration, IPv6 auto-configuration etc. This document is the right
 category for the standards track.

Yes, the document title page indicates being '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:

   The DECT Ultra Low Energy is an addition to the DECT interface
   primarily intended for low-bandwidth, low-power applications such as
   sensor devices, smart meters, home automation etc.  As the DECT Ultra
   Low Energy interface inherits many of the capabilities from DECT, it
   benefits from long range, interference free operation, world wide
   reserved frequency band, low silicon prices and maturity.  There is
   an added value in the ability to communicate with IPv6 over DECT ULE
   such as for Internet of Things applications. As an example, the technology
   could be integrated with residential gateway. DECT-ULE deployment typically
   use application profile based  protocol support and 6lo-over-dect-ule is one
   of them. The differences between 6loWPAN(IPv6-over-IEEE802.15.4) and this
   specification are that DECT-ULE only supports Star topology, a 40-bit unique
   ID among DECT devices, optional MAC-48 bit assignment, larger MTU size than
   IEEE802.15.4 and thus different requirements for fragmentation and
   re-assembly. The document also shows a mechansim for deriving the 64-bit IID
   in order to form an IPv6 address and subsets of RFC6775, Header compression.
   The draft discusses privacy considerations and possible randomly generated
   IID support.

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?

The document has been reviewed over the 6lo WG mailing list (Kerry Lynn, Ralph
Droms, Samita Chakrabarti, Gabriel Montenegro) and the comments were addressed.
A critical comment for the document was to remove reference of globally unique
64-bit  IID when it is derived from 40bit DECT unique id, which was taken care
in version 05.

The chairs have been informed that RTX and Gigaset have implementations on the
draft. An open source implementation might be available via ULE alliance.

DECT-ULE and IP access device support:

Gigaset elements:

Deutsche Telekom:

AVM Fritz:


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.

The document has been reviewed by the document shepherd and other technical
experts in the WG. The document is in good shape.

(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of
the reviews that
 have been performed?
No. It has been reviewed by a number of WG members and co-chairs of 6lo.

(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 The document is ready to advance.

(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. Yes the document authors confirmed that they are aware about the IETF rules.
The document authors have been informed by the shepherd about the IPR rule.
There is no IPR statements made at the data tracker draft site.

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

A. Please see above. No IPR statements are available on this document; the
draft authors are unaware
 of any IPR on this document.

(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 WG as a whole understands and agrees. The document has been around for
sometime and received many comments.

(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. Not aware of any discontent.

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

A. None.

(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. Not applicable. All normative references are RFCs or ETSI documents.

(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

A. No. [ Assuming RFC 2119 is allowed in normative section ]

(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.

A. This document specifies transmission of IPv6 packets over DECT ULE, though
it uses RFC4944,
 RFC6282 and RFC6775 as reference points it does not update them.

(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.

A. Not applicable.