(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 Standard]
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:
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.
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:
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
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
(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 http://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not
enough; this check needs to be thorough.
(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?
(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 procedure.
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.