Assignment of an Ethertype for IPv6 with Low-Power Wireless Personal Area Network (LoWPAN) Encapsulation
draft-ietf-6lo-ethertype-request-01

(Via drafts-lastcall-comment@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

IANA has reviewed draft-ietf-6lo-ethertype-request-01.txt, which is currently in Last Call, and has the following comments:

We understand that this document doesn't require any IANA actions.

While it's often helpful for a document's IANA Considerations section to remain in place upon publication even if there are no actions, if the authors strongly prefer to remove it, IANA does not object.

If this assessment is not accurate, please respond as soon as possible.

Thank you,

Sabrina Tanamal
IANA Specialist
ICANN

The following Last Call announcement was sent out:

From: The IESG
To: "IETF-Announce"
CC: 6lo-chairs@ietf.org, draft-ietf-6lo-ethertype-request@ietf.org, suresh.krishnan@ericsson.com, "Samita Chakrabarti" , samita.chakrabarti@ericsson.com, 6lo@ietf.org
Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org
Sender:
Subject: Last Call:  (Assignment of an Ethertype for IPv6 with LoWPAN Encapsulation) to Informational RFC


The IESG has received a request from the IPv6 over Networks of
Resource-constrained Nodes WG (6lo) to consider the following document:
- 'Assignment of an Ethertype for IPv6 with LoWPAN Encapsulation'
  as Informational RFC

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 2016-07-13. 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


  When carried over layer 2 technologies such as Ethernet, IPv6
  datagrams using LoWPAN encapsulation as defined in RFC 4944 must be
  identified so the receiver can correctly interpret the encoded IPv6
  datagram.  This document requests the assignment of an Ethertype for
  that purpose.




The file can be obtained via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-6lo-ethertype-request/

IESG discussion can be tracked via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-6lo-ethertype-request/ballot/


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

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

A1: Draft name: draft-ietf-6lo-ethertype-request.  Type: Informational

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

A2:

The document is about requesting IEEE for assignment of an ethertype for IPv6 with LoWPAN encapsulation.


Yes, the document title page indicates being 'Informational'. With the publication of this document,
IETF will formally request IEEE for assignment of an ethertype for IPv6 datagrams containing
LoWPAN encapsulation. Thus it is an informational document at IETF.


(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:

  IETF currently defines format for IPV6[RFC2460]  with LOWPAN encapsulation in RFC4944. However the L2
  MAC frame is using the same ethertype for both IPv6 datagram[RFC2460] and IPv6 with LOWPAN encapsulation[RFC4944].
  This works fine when RFC4944 was written for only IEEE802.15.4 L2 medium. As time progressed, several
  other ethertype based L2 technolgies found usefulness in using RFC4944 defined LOWPAN encapsulation methods
  for optimized usage of IPv6 in certain use cases.
  For example, Wi-SUN Alliance intends to use the 15.9 Multiplexed Data Information Element to dispatch
  LoWPAN encapsulation frames to upper stack layers.  As specified in IEEE 802.15.9, dispatch of
  LoWPAN encapsulation frames will require an Ethertype be assigned for LoWPAN encapsulation.
 
  WiFi Alliance's HALOW standard ( Low power operation in 900 MHZ band) and other L2 technolgies such as
  Ethernet and Wireshark will benefit from having a separate ethertype for IPv6 datagrams with LOWPAN
  encapsulation.
 
  Additionally, any existing or future Layer 2 technology, incorporating Ethertype based upper layer dispatch,
  can use the Ethertype proposed in this document to dispatch LoWPAN encapsulated IPv6 datagrams.


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 over the 6lo WG mailing list and has been discussed with multiple comments.
The chairs have reviewed the document as well.




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.
The document has been reviewed by the document shepherd and other technical experts in the WG.
The document is ready for publication. In fact Wi-Sun Alliance is the  main driver for this change.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B_dfHB5kVro


(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that
have been performed?
A.
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 available to their knowledge.





(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.


(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.

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 IETF references are RFCs.

(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.  Publishing the document does not require an update of RFC4944.  IEEE deployments are expected
    to take care of any backward compatibility issues with this change of ether type value with existing
    L2 implementations. Thus no change is needed in existing 6lo documents.

(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.

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

A1: Draft name: draft-ietf-6lo-ethertype-request.  Type: Informational

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

A2:

The document is about requesting IEEE for assignment of an ethertype for IPv6 with LoWPAN encapsulation.


Yes, the document title page indicates being 'Informational'. With the publication of this document,
IETF will formally request IEEE for assignment of an ethertype for IPv6 datagrams containing
LoWPAN encapsulation. Thus it is an informational document at IETF.


(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:

  IETF currently defines format for IPV6[RFC2460]  with LOWPAN encapsulation in RFC4944. However the L2
  MAC frame is using the same ethertype for both IPv6 datagram[RFC2460] and IPv6 with LOWPAN encapsulation[RFC4944].
  This works fine when RFC4944 was written for only IEEE802.15.4 L2 medium. As time progressed, several
  other ethertype based L2 technolgies found usefulness in using RFC4944 defined LOWPAN encapsulation methods
  for optimized usage of IPv6 in certain use cases.
  For example, Wi-SUN Alliance intends to use the 15.9 Multiplexed Data Information Element to dispatch
  LoWPAN encapsulation frames to upper stack layers.  As specified in IEEE 802.15.9, dispatch of
  LoWPAN encapsulation frames will require an Ethertype be assigned for LoWPAN encapsulation.
 
  WiFi Alliance's HALOW standard ( Low power operation in 900 MHZ band) and other L2 technolgies such as
  Ethernet and Wireshark will benefit from having a separate ethertype for IPv6 datagrams with LOWPAN
  encapsulation.
 
  Additionally, any existing or future Layer 2 technology, incorporating Ethertype based upper layer dispatch,
  can use the Ethertype proposed in this document to dispatch LoWPAN encapsulated IPv6 datagrams.


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 over the 6lo WG mailing list and has been discussed with multiple comments.
The chairs have reviewed the document as well.




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.
The document has been reviewed by the document shepherd and other technical experts in the WG.
The document is ready for publication. In fact Wi-Sun Alliance is the  main driver for this change.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B_dfHB5kVro


(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that
have been performed?
A.
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 available to their knowledge.





(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.


(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.

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 IETF references are RFCs.

(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.  Publishing the document does not require an update of RFC4944.  IEEE deployments are expected
    to take care of any backward compatibility issues with this change of ether type value with existing
    L2 implementations. Thus no change is needed in existing 6lo documents.

(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.