Skip to main content

Shepherd writeup
rfc7388-04

(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?

        Publication as Proposed Standard is requested. This is indicated in the
        title page header.

        This document defines a MIB module for reading counters of the 6lowpan
        adaptation layer. MIB modules are well-defined standard interfaces for
        management. The document describes how the MIB module fits into the
        IoT stack together with other Standard Track MIB modules on different
        layers. The list of counters defined in this document has WG consensus.
        Implementations for constrained devices have been demonstrated at the
        plugfest at IETF90, showing the feasibility for using MIB modules for
        constrained devices. The document points out that MIB modules are not
        necessarily tied to SNMP, and that other protocols may be used to read
        the counters defined in this document, if SNMP has too much overhead
        in order to be used on very constrained devices.

(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:
        This memo defines a portion of the Management Information Base (MIB)
        for use with network management protocols in the Internet community.
        In particular, it defines objects for managing IPv6 over Low-Power
        Wireless Personal Area Networks (6LoWPANs).

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?

        There were no particular points of contention in the WG process, and the
        consensus behind publication of this document as a Standards Track RFC
        appears solid.

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?

        There is at least one implementation of the specification using SNMP to
        read counters of a constrained device using the 6lowpan adaptation
        layer. This implementation has been demonstrated at the plugfest of
        IETF90. There have been good discussions of the document among the WG
        participants, in general. There have been no specific MIB doctor, Media
        Type or other expert reviews done. The main editor is himself a MIB
        doctor.

Personnel:
Who is the Document Shepherd? Who is the Responsible Area Director?

        The Document Shepherd is Ulrich Herberg.
        The Responsible Area Director is Brian Haberman.

(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 has reviewed this document, both as part of the
        WG process, and prior to the issuance of the Publication Request.
        The document shepherd believes that this version of the document is
        ready for publication.

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

        The document shepherd has no concerns with the depth or
        breadth of the reviews of this document.

(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.

        This document does not need reviews beyond those normally done during
        AD and 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.

        The document shepherd has no specific concerns with this document.

(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?

        Each author has confirmed that they are not aware of any IPR requiring
        disclosure.

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

        No IPR disclosures have been filed, referencing 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?

        While the chairs had to solicit more feedback during the initial WG LC,
        several WG participants then supported publication on the mailing list.
        In addition, there was a good discussion about the draft at IETF90 with
        multiple additional supporters (and no opponents).
        Therefore, the shepherd concludes that the WG consensus behind this
        document appears solid.

(10) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent?
If so, please summarize 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 appeals have been threatened.
        No extreme discontent has been indicated.

(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.

        IDNIT returns several minor warnings. The shepherd will make sure that
        these will be fixed together with any comments received during AD
        evaluation and IETF LC.

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

        This document has been edited by a MIB doctor. If considered necessary,
        another MIB doctor can review the document in addition.

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

        All references have 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?

        All normative references are to already published RFC at the same,
        or on a higher, maturity level.

        All informative references are to already published RFC at the same,
        or on a higher, maturity level.

(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.

        There are no downward references.

(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 does not change the status of any 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.

        The document shepherd has reviewed the IANA considerations section,
        which is both consistent with the body of the document.

Confirm that all protocol extensions that the document makes are associated
with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries.

        This is confirmed.

Confirm that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified.

        All 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 does not create any new IANA registries.

(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.

        This document does not create any new IANA registries.

(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.

        The shepherd has reviewed the MIB module and in addition verified it
        with "smilint".
Back