Skip to main content

IPv6 over Low-Power Wireless Personal Area Network (6LoWPAN) ESC Dispatch Code Points and Guidelines
draft-ietf-6lo-dispatch-iana-registry-07

Revision differences

Document history

Date Rev. By Action
2017-02-06
07 (System) RFC Editor state changed to AUTH48-DONE from AUTH48
2017-01-30
07 (System) RFC Editor state changed to AUTH48 from RFC-EDITOR
2017-01-23
07 (System) RFC Editor state changed to RFC-EDITOR from EDIT
2016-12-22
07 Tero Kivinen Closed request for Last Call review by SECDIR with state 'No Response'
2016-12-21
07 (System) IANA Action state changed to RFC-Ed-Ack from Waiting on RFC Editor
2016-12-21
07 (System) IANA Action state changed to Waiting on RFC Editor from Waiting on Authors
2016-12-21
07 (System) IANA Action state changed to Waiting on Authors from In Progress
2016-12-19
07 (System) IANA Action state changed to In Progress
2016-12-19
07 (System) RFC Editor state changed to EDIT
2016-12-19
07 (System) IESG state changed to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent
2016-12-19
07 (System) Announcement was received by RFC Editor
2016-12-19
07 Cindy Morgan IESG state changed to Approved-announcement sent from Approved-announcement to be sent
2016-12-19
07 Cindy Morgan IESG has approved the document
2016-12-19
07 Cindy Morgan Closed "Approve" ballot
2016-12-19
07 Cindy Morgan Ballot approval text was generated
2016-12-19
07 Cindy Morgan Ballot writeup was changed
2016-12-15
07 Cindy Morgan IESG state changed to Approved-announcement to be sent from IESG Evaluation
2016-12-15
07 Jari Arkko [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Jari Arkko
2016-12-14
07 Joel Jaeggli [Ballot comment]
Rick Casarez  provided the opsdir review
2016-12-14
07 Joel Jaeggli [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Joel Jaeggli
2016-12-14
07 Deborah Brungard [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Deborah Brungard
2016-12-14
07 Suresh Krishnan IESG state changed to IESG Evaluation from Waiting for Writeup
2016-12-14
07 Ben Campbell [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Ben Campbell
2016-12-14
07 Alia Atlas [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Alia Atlas
2016-12-14
07 Kathleen Moriarty [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Kathleen Moriarty
2016-12-13
07 Spencer Dawkins [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Spencer Dawkins
2016-12-13
07 Alvaro Retana [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Alvaro Retana
2016-12-13
07 Alissa Cooper [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Alissa Cooper
2016-12-13
07 Stephen Farrell [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Stephen Farrell
2016-12-13
07 Mirja Kühlewind [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Mirja Kühlewind
2016-12-12
07 Alexey Melnikov [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Alexey Melnikov
2016-12-12
07 Benoît Claise [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Benoit Claise
2016-12-12
07 Gunter Van de Velde Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR Completed: Ready. Reviewer: Rick Casarez.
2016-12-12
07 Suresh Krishnan
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 …
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?  Is this type of RFC indicated in the
title page header?

This document is requesting classification as a Proposed Standard. This type
is appropriate given the portions of the document that update RFCs 4944 and
6282 and define how the Dispatch Byte functions within the 6lowpan
protocol.

(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

  RFC4944 defines the ESC dispatch type to allow for additional
  dispatch bytes in the 6lowpan header.  The value of the ESC byte was
  updated by RFC6282, however, its usage was not defined either in
  RFC6282 or in RFC4944.  This document updates RFC4944 and RFC6282 by
  defining the ESC extension byte code points including registration of
  entries for known use cases at the time of writing of this document.

Working Group Summary

The genesis of this document comes from interactions with other SDOs
using the 6lowpan technologies. Support for this document was strong
given the wide and varied uses of RFCs 4944 and 6282.

Document Quality

No additional special reviews are needed. Feedback from ITU-T indicates
that the creation of this IANA registry will address their concerns.

Personnel

  Brian Haberman is the Document Shepherd
  Suresh Krishnan  is the Responsible Area Director

(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 shepherd performed several in-depth reviews of the draft
during its formulation and after its passage of WGLC. Part of the review
entailed mapping the requested IANA registry entries to the ITU-T
specifications using those entries to ensure complete coverage.

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

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.

No special reviews needed.

(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.

No concerns to note.

(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.

Yes.

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

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 vast majority of the engaged WG participants strongly support this
document. There have been no objections raised to its publication.

(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.)

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.

No nits or gnats found.

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

N/A.

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

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?

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.

No.

(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.

This document updates two RFCs (4944 and 6282). Both are duly
noted in the title page header and in the Abstract.

(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).

This document is essentially one big IANA Considerations. It creates
a new registry under the "IPv6 Low Power Personal Area Network Parameters"
protocol entry within the IANA tree. The new registry specification appears
complete and matches the textual discussion within the body of 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.

The IANA Considerations section provides guidance for the designated experts
as the new registry is labeled as "Specification Required". The WG chairs
will communicate the identified experts to the shepherding AD.

(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.

N/A.
2016-12-12
07 Suresh Krishnan Ballot has been issued
2016-12-12
07 Suresh Krishnan [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Suresh Krishnan
2016-12-12
07 Suresh Krishnan Created "Approve" ballot
2016-12-12
07 Suresh Krishnan Ballot writeup was changed
2016-12-12
07 (System) IANA Review state changed to IANA OK - Actions Needed from IANA - Review Needed
2016-12-12
07 Sabrina Tanamal
(Via drafts-lastcall-comment@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

The IANA Services Operator has completed its review of [draft-string]. If any part of this review is inaccurate, please let …
(Via drafts-lastcall-comment@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

The IANA Services Operator has completed its review of [draft-string]. If any part of this review is inaccurate, please let us know.

The IANA Services Operator understands that, upon approval of this document, there is a single action which we must complete.

A new registry is to be created called the 'ESC Extension Type' registry. The new registry is to be a subregistry of the IPv6 Low Power Personal Area Network Parameters registry located at:

https://www.iana.org/assignments/_6lowpan-parameters/

The new registry will be maintained through Specification Required as defined by RFC 5226.

There are initial registrations in the new registry as follows:

+-------+---------------------------------+---------------+
| Value | Description | Reference |
+-------+---------------------------------+---------------+
| 0 | Reserved for future use | [ RFC-to-be ] |
| | | |
| 1-31 | Used by ITU-T G.9903 and G.9905 | ITU-T G.9903 &|
| | Command IDs | ITU-T G.9905 |
| | | |
| 32-254| Unassigned | [ RFC-to-be ] |
| |(Reserved for future IANA | |
| | Assignment-- Spec Required) | |
| | | |
| 255 | Reserved for future use | [ RFC-to-be ] |
+-------+---------------------------------+---------------+

The IANA Services Operator understands that this is the only action required to be completed upon approval of this document.

Note:  The actions requested in this document will not be completed until the document has been approved for publication as an RFC. This message is only to confirm what actions will be performed.

Thank you,

Sabrina Tanamal
IANA Services Specialist
2016-12-08
07 Russ Housley Request for Telechat review by GENART Completed: Ready. Reviewer: Russ Housley.
2016-12-08
07 Jean Mahoney Request for Telechat review by GENART is assigned to Russ Housley
2016-12-08
07 Jean Mahoney Request for Telechat review by GENART is assigned to Russ Housley
2016-12-08
07 Gabriel Montenegro New version available: draft-ietf-6lo-dispatch-iana-registry-07.txt
2016-12-08
07 (System) New version approved
2016-12-08
07 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: "Samita Chakrabarti" , 6lo-chairs@ietf.org, "Gabriel Montenegro" , "james woodyatt" , "Ralph Droms"
2016-12-08
07 Gabriel Montenegro Uploaded new revision
2016-12-08
06 (System) IESG state changed to Waiting for Writeup from In Last Call
2016-12-05
06 Suresh Krishnan Placed on agenda for telechat - 2016-12-15
2016-12-01
06 Russ Housley Request for Last Call review by GENART Completed: Almost Ready. Reviewer: Russ Housley.
2016-11-24
06 Tero Kivinen Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Ben Laurie
2016-11-24
06 Tero Kivinen Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Ben Laurie
2016-11-23
06 Gunter Van de Velde Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR is assigned to Rick Casarez
2016-11-23
06 Gunter Van de Velde Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR is assigned to Rick Casarez
2016-11-17
06 Jean Mahoney Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Russ Housley
2016-11-17
06 Jean Mahoney Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Russ Housley
2016-11-16
06 Cindy Morgan IANA Review state changed to IANA - Review Needed
2016-11-16
06 Cindy Morgan
The following Last Call announcement was sent out:

From: The IESG
To: "IETF-Announce"
CC: brian@innovationslab.net, 6lo-chairs@ietf.org, draft-ietf-6lo-dispatch-iana-registry@ietf.org, "Brian Haberman" , suresh.krishnan@ericsson.com, …
The following Last Call announcement was sent out:

From: The IESG
To: "IETF-Announce"
CC: brian@innovationslab.net, 6lo-chairs@ietf.org, draft-ietf-6lo-dispatch-iana-registry@ietf.org, "Brian Haberman" , suresh.krishnan@ericsson.com, 6lo@ietf.org
Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org
Sender:
Subject: Last Call:  (6lowpan ESC Dispatch Code Points and Guidelines) to Proposed Standard


The IESG has received a request from the IPv6 over Networks of
Resource-constrained Nodes WG (6lo) to consider the following document:
- '6lowpan ESC Dispatch Code Points and Guidelines'
  as Proposed Standard

The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the
ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2016-12-08. Exceptionally, comments may be
sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the
beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting.

Abstract


  RFC4944 defines the ESC dispatch type to allow for additional
  dispatch bytes in the 6lowpan header.  The value of the ESC byte was
  updated by RFC6282, however, its usage was not defined either in
  RFC6282 or in RFC4944.  This document updates RFC4944 and RFC6282 by
  defining the ESC extension byte code points including registration of
  entries for known use cases at the time of writing of this document.




The file can be obtained via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-6lo-dispatch-iana-registry/

IESG discussion can be tracked via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-6lo-dispatch-iana-registry/ballot/


No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D.




2016-11-16
06 Cindy Morgan IESG state changed to In Last Call from Last Call Requested
2016-11-16
06 Suresh Krishnan Last call was requested
2016-11-16
06 Suresh Krishnan Ballot approval text was generated
2016-11-16
06 Suresh Krishnan Ballot writeup was generated
2016-11-16
06 Suresh Krishnan IESG state changed to Last Call Requested from AD Evaluation::AD Followup
2016-11-16
06 Suresh Krishnan Last call announcement was changed
2016-11-16
06 (System) Sub state has been changed to AD Followup from Revised ID Needed
2016-11-16
06 Gabriel Montenegro New version available: draft-ietf-6lo-dispatch-iana-registry-06.txt
2016-11-16
06 (System) New version approved
2016-11-16
06 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: "Samita Chakrabarti" , "Ralph Droms" , "Gabriel Montenegro" , "james woodyatt" , 6lo-chairs@ietf.org
2016-11-16
06 Gabriel Montenegro Uploaded new revision
2016-11-16
05 Suresh Krishnan IESG state changed to AD Evaluation::Revised I-D Needed from Publication Requested
2016-09-27
05 Gabriel Montenegro
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 …
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?  Is this type of RFC indicated in the
title page header?

This document is requesting classification as a Proposed Standard. This type
is appropriate given the portions of the document that update RFCs 4944 and
6282 and define how the Dispatch Byte functions within the 6lowpan
protocol.

(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

  RFC4944 defines the ESC dispatch type to allow for additional
  dispatch bytes in the 6lowpan header.  The value of the ESC byte was
  updated by RFC6282, however, its usage was not defined either in
  RFC6282 or in RFC4944.  This document updates RFC4944 and RFC6282 by
  defining the ESC extension byte code points including registration of
  entries for known use cases at the time of writing of this document.

Working Group Summary

The genesis of this document comes from interactions with other SDOs
using the 6lowpan technologies. Support for this document was strong
given the wide and varied uses of RFCs 4944 and 6282.

Document Quality

No additional special reviews are needed. Feedback from ITU-T indicates
that the creation of this IANA registry will address their concerns.

Personnel

  Brian Haberman is the Document Shepherd
  Suresh Krishnan  is the Responsible Area Director?

(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 shepherd performed several in-depth reviews of the draft
during its formulation and after its passage of WGLC. Part of the review
entailed mapping the requested IANA registry entries to the ITU-T
specifications using those entries to ensure complete coverage.

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

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.

No special reviews needed.

(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.

No concerns to note.

(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.

Yes.

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

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 vast majority of the engaged WG participants strongly support this
document. There have been no objections raised to its publication.

(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.)

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.

No nits or gnats found.

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

N/A.

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

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?

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.

No.

(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.

This document updates two RFCs (4944 and 6282). Both are duly
noted in the title page header and in the Abstract.

(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).

This document is essentially one big IANA Considerations. It creates
a new registry under the "IPv6 Low Power Personal Area Network Parameters"
protocol entry within the IANA tree. The new registry specification appears
complete and matches the textual discussion within the body of 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.

The IANA Considerations section provides guidance for the designated experts
as the new registry is labeled as "Specification Required". The WG chairs
will communicate the identified experts to the shepherding AD.

(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.

N/A.
2016-09-27
05 Gabriel Montenegro Responsible AD changed to Suresh Krishnan
2016-09-27
05 Gabriel Montenegro IETF WG state changed to Submitted to IESG for Publication from WG Consensus: Waiting for Write-Up
2016-09-27
05 Gabriel Montenegro IESG state changed to Publication Requested
2016-09-27
05 Gabriel Montenegro IESG process started in state Publication Requested
2016-09-27
05 Gabriel Montenegro Changed consensus to Yes from Unknown
2016-09-27
05 Gabriel Montenegro Intended Status changed to Proposed Standard from None
2016-09-27
05 Gabriel Montenegro Notification list changed to "Brian Haberman" <brian@innovationslab.net> from "Jonathan Hui" <jonhui@nestlabs.com>, "Brian Haberman" <brian@innovationslab.net>
2016-09-27
05 Brian Haberman Changed document writeup
2016-09-27
05 Brian Haberman Changed document writeup
2016-09-16
05 Samita Chakrabarti New version available: draft-ietf-6lo-dispatch-iana-registry-05.txt
2016-09-16
05 Samita Chakrabarti New version approved
2016-09-16
05 Samita Chakrabarti Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: 6lo-chairs@ietf.org, "Gabriel Montenegro" , "james woodyatt" , "Ralph Droms" , "Samita Chakrabarti"
2016-09-16
05 (System) Uploaded new revision
2016-08-08
04 Samita Chakrabarti New version available: draft-ietf-6lo-dispatch-iana-registry-04.txt
2016-05-23
03 Samita Chakrabarti Notification list changed to "Jonathan Hui" <jonhui@nestlabs.com>, "Brian Haberman" <brian@innovationslab.net> from "Jonathan Hui" <jonhui@nestlabs.com>
2016-05-23
03 Samita Chakrabarti Document shepherd changed to Brian Haberman
2016-05-18
03 Samita Chakrabarti IETF WG state changed to WG Consensus: Waiting for Write-Up from WG Document
2016-04-07
03 Samita Chakrabarti New version available: draft-ietf-6lo-dispatch-iana-registry-03.txt
2016-03-31
02 Samita Chakrabarti Notification list changed to "Jonathan Hui" <jonhui@nestlabs.com>
2016-03-31
02 Samita Chakrabarti Document shepherd changed to Jonathan Hui
2016-03-21
02 Samita Chakrabarti New version available: draft-ietf-6lo-dispatch-iana-registry-02.txt
2016-02-25
01 Samita Chakrabarti New version available: draft-ietf-6lo-dispatch-iana-registry-01.txt
2016-02-04
00 Samita Chakrabarti New version available: draft-ietf-6lo-dispatch-iana-registry-00.txt