Skip to main content

Shepherd writeup

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

A1: Standards track [ Proposed Standard]

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

A2: The document specifies  transmission of IPv6-over-ITU-T G.9959 networks.
The document uses 6lo documents as its base document and specifies the behavior
of the RFC4944, RFC 6282 and RFC6775 for ITU-T G.9959. This document requires
to be a standards track document. 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 ITU-T G.9959 recommendation targets low-power Personal Area Networks.  This
document defines the frame format for transmission of IPv6 [RFC2460] packets as
well as the formation of IPv6 link-local addresses and statelessly
autoconfigured IPv6 addresses on G.9959 networks. The general approach of this
document is to adapt 6lowpan base documents (RFC 4944, RFC 6282 and RFC 6775)
with minor modifications for running efficiently in G.9959 networks.

The document also discusses mapping of G.9959 parameters (ex: HomeID) into IPv6
address formation.

Working Group Summary:

The work on draft-ietf-6lo-lowpanz started sometime ago in 6lowpan WG and now
the work is transferred to 6lo WG. It has been reviewed by several members of
the WG. During WG LC an improvement request came in to update the solution for
non-MAC derived IPv6 address support. In addition there were comments by
Carsten Bormann on multiple cases of SHOULD and MUST in the document. The
changes were substantial.  The document addressed privacy comments by providing
options for using frequently changing managed addressing (example DHCPv6) at
the cost of efficiency and cost of operations. However the link-layer address
MUST be derived from the IID in order to provide efficient header compression
described in RFC6282. In the constrained environment, the compression and
ability for quick identification might be more practical and desirable than
privacy as usually these networks come with gateway devices. However, because
of the substantial changes in the document after the first WG LC, the
6lo-chairs decided to have a second LC. During second LC, there were comments
on clarification and editorial changes. After the LC, there were several
comments from the co-chair/shepherd and the document authors also addressed
them mostly and finally pbulished version 05. The WG LC comments are listed in
the issue tracker.

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 currently single implementation available by Sigma deisgn which has
products in Z-wave technology area. We do not know about other Z-wave
implementations of this draft. However, once it becomes RFC, it will be
referenced in the Z-Wave Alliance documents and it will then be expected to be
implemented by other Z-Wave vendors in due course. Note that Z-wave vendors are
not typpical IETF participants. Carsten Bormann's name can be mentioned as one
of the thorough reviewers who suggested non-trivial changes.


Who is the Document Shepherd? Who is the Responsible Area Director?
Document shepherd: Samita Chakrabarti
Responsible Area Director: 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 has been reviewed by the document shepherd and comments were
addressed in revision -05 of the document. The document is in good shape. The
terms and definition section may need more explanatory text before publication.

(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

(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 quite informative. For cosmetic reasons, the terms and
definition sections should have more text to give people an idea about
different lowpower acronyms and specifics of G.9959 networks.

(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.
They are investigating with their legal counsel if any IPR in Z-wave alliance
indirectly apply to this draft. The following is their findings so far. They
informed that will be working on an IPR statement.

"Most likely, there will be no particular IPR issues with the lowpanz draft but
it builds on top of ITU-T G.9959
( which refers to Sigma IPR.
G.9959 contains the following clause:

ITU draws attention to the possibility that the practice or implementation of
this Recommendation may involve the use of a claimed Intellectual Property
Right. ITU takes no position concerning the evidence, validity or applicability
of claimed Intellectual Property Rights, whether asserted by ITU members or
others outside of the Recommendation development process. As of the date of
approval of this Recommendation, ITU had received notice of intellectual
property, protected by patents, which may be required to implement this
Recommendation. However, implementers are cautioned that this may not represent
the latest information and are therefore strongly urged to consult the TSB
patent database at"

(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 for the possible IPR from Sigma Design submitted to Z-Wave
which can affect this document. The document authors informed that they are
working on preparing an IPR statement for IETF.

A 2 week WG call for IPR review had been placed and there was no objection on
the IPR policy in the 6lo mailing list or any private emails to the chairs. The
shepherding chair sent an email after the review period letting the WG know
that this document now would advance to the next stage.

(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 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.

(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 G.9959 networks,
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.