Skip to main content

IPv6 Neighbor Discovery Multicast and Anycast Address Listener Subscription
draft-ietf-6lo-multicast-registration-16

Revision differences

Document history

Date Rev. By Action
2024-03-21
16 Erik Kline Changed action holders to Éric Vyncke
2024-03-18
16 Jenny Bui Shepherding AD changed to Éric Vyncke
2024-03-05
16 Kyle Rose Request for Last Call review by TSVART Completed: On the Right Track. Reviewer: Kyle Rose. Sent review to list.
2024-03-05
16 (System) IESG state changed to Waiting for AD Go-Ahead from In Last Call
2024-03-04
16 (System) IANA Review state changed to IANA OK - Actions Needed from IANA - Review Needed
2024-03-04
16 David Dong
(Via drafts-lastcall@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

IANA has completed its review of draft-ietf-6lo-multicast-registration-16. If any part of this review is inaccurate, please let us know.

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

IANA has completed its review of draft-ietf-6lo-multicast-registration-16. If any part of this review is inaccurate, please let us know.

IANA understands that, upon approval of this document, there are eight actions which we must complete.

First, a new registry is to be created called the P-Field values registry. The new registry will be located in the Internet Control Message Protocol version 6 (ICMPv6) Parameters registry group located at:

https://www.iana.org/assignments/icmpv6-parameters/

The new registry will be managed via Standards Action as defined by RFC8126. There are initial values in the new registry as follows:

Value Registered Address Type Indicator Reference
-----+-----------------------------------+---------------
0 Registration for a Unicast Address [ RFC-to-be ]
1 Registration for a Multicast Address [ RFC-to-be ]
2 Registration for an Anycast Address [ RFC-to-be ]
3 Unassigned [ RFC-to-be ]

Second, a new registry is to be created called the EDAR Message Flags registry. The new registry will be located in the Internet Control Message Protocol version 6 (ICMPv6) Parameters registry group located at:

https://www.iana.org/assignments/icmpv6-parameters/

The new registry will be managed via IETF Review or IESG Approval as defined by RFC8126. There are initial values in the new registry as follows:

Bit Number Meaning Reference
-----------+--------+----------
0..1 P-Field (2 bits) [ RFC-to-be; Section 14.1 ]
2..7 Unassigned

Third, in the Address Registration Option Flags registry in the Internet Control Message Protocol version 6 (ICMPv6) Parameters registry group located at:

https://www.iana.org/assignments/icmpv6-parameters/

a single new registration will be made as follows:

Bit Number: 2..3
Meaning: P-Field (2 bits)
Reference: [ RFC-to-be; Section 14.1 ]

Fourth, in the RPL Target Option Flags registry in the Routing Protocol for Low Power and Lossy Networks (RPL) registry group located at:

https://www.iana.org/assignments/rpl/rpl.xhtml#rpl-target-option-flags

a single new registration is to be made as follows:

Bit Number: 2..3
Meaning: P-Field (2 bits)
Reference: [ RFC-to-be; Section 14.1 ]

Fifth, in the Mode of Operation registry also in the Routing Protocol for Low Power and Lossy Networks (RPL) registry group located at:

https://www.iana.org/assignments/rpl/rpl.xhtml#rpl-target-option-flags

a single new registration will be made as follows:

Value: 5
Description: Non-Storing Mode of Operation with ingress replication multicast support
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

Sixth, in the 6LoWPAN Capability Bits registry in the Internet Control Message Protocol version 6 (ICMPv6) Parameters registry group located at:

https://www.iana.org/assignments/icmpv6-parameters/

a single new registration will be made as follows:

Bit: 8
Meaning: X flag: Registration for Unicast, Multicast, and Anycast Addresses Supported
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

Seventh, in the Address Registration Option Status Values registry in the Internet Control Message Protocol version 6 (ICMPv6) Parameters registry group located at:

https://www.iana.org/assignments/icmpv6-parameters/

two new registrations will be made as follows:

Value: 11
Description: Registration Refresh Request
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

Value: 12
Description: Invalid Registration
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

Eighth, in the IPv6 Neighbor Discovery Option Formats registry also in the Internet Control Message Protocol version 6 (ICMPv6) Parameters registry group located at:

https://www.iana.org/assignments/icmpv6-parameters/

two new registrations will be made as follows:

Value: 42
Description: Consistent Uptime Option
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

We understand that these are the only actions 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 meant only to confirm the list of actions that will be performed.

For definitions of IANA review states, please see:

https://datatracker.ietf.org/help/state/draft/iana-review

Thank you,

David Dong
IANA Services Sr. Specialist
2024-03-04
16 Magnus Westerlund Request for Last Call review by TSVART is assigned to Kyle Rose
2024-03-04
16 Dan Romascanu Request for Last Call review by GENART Completed: Ready with Issues. Reviewer: Dan Romascanu. Sent review to list.
2024-02-27
16 Carlos Pignataro Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR is assigned to Yingzhen Qu
2024-02-22
16 Jean Mahoney Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Dan Romascanu
2024-02-22
16 Tero Kivinen Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Scott Kelly
2024-02-20
16 Cindy Morgan IANA Review state changed to IANA - Review Needed
2024-02-20
16 Cindy Morgan
The following Last Call announcement was sent out (ends 2024-03-05):

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC: 6lo-chairs@ietf.org, 6lo@ietf.org, draft-ietf-6lo-multicast-registration@ietf.org, ek.ietf@gmail.com, shwetha.bhandari@gmail.com …
The following Last Call announcement was sent out (ends 2024-03-05):

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC: 6lo-chairs@ietf.org, 6lo@ietf.org, draft-ietf-6lo-multicast-registration@ietf.org, ek.ietf@gmail.com, shwetha.bhandari@gmail.com
Reply-To: last-call@ietf.org
Sender:
Subject: Last Call:  (IPv6 Neighbor Discovery Multicast and Anycast Address Listener Subscription) 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: -
'IPv6 Neighbor Discovery Multicast and Anycast Address Listener
  Subscription'
  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
last-call@ietf.org mailing lists by 2024-03-05. 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


  This document updates the 6LoWPAN extensions to IPv6 Neighbor
  Discovery (RFC 4861, RFC 8505) to enable a listener to subscribe to
  an IPv6 anycast or multicast address; the document updates RPL (RFC
  6550
, RFC 6553) to add a new Non-Storing Multicast Mode and a new
  support for anycast addresses in Storing and Non-Storing Modes.  This
  document extends RFC 9010 to enable the 6LR to inject the anycast and
  multicast addresses in RPL.




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


The following IPR Declarations may be related to this I-D:

  https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/5263/



The document contains these normative downward references.
See RFC 3967 for additional information:
    rfc9030: An Architecture for IPv6 over the Time-Slotted Channel Hopping Mode of IEEE 802.15.4 (6TiSCH) (Informational - Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF))



2024-02-20
16 Cindy Morgan IESG state changed to In Last Call from Last Call Requested
2024-02-20
16 Cindy Morgan Last call announcement was generated
2024-02-19
16 Erik Kline Last call was requested
2024-02-19
16 Erik Kline Ballot approval text was generated
2024-02-19
16 Erik Kline Ballot writeup was generated
2024-02-19
16 Erik Kline IESG state changed to Last Call Requested from AD Evaluation::AD Followup
2024-02-19
16 Erik Kline Last call announcement was generated
2023-11-10
16 (System) Changed action holders to Erik Kline (IESG state changed)
2023-11-10
16 (System) Sub state has been changed to AD Followup from Revised I-D Needed
2023-11-10
16 Pascal Thubert New version available: draft-ietf-6lo-multicast-registration-16.txt
2023-11-10
16 Pascal Thubert New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Pascal Thubert)
2023-11-10
16 Pascal Thubert Uploaded new revision
2023-11-09
15 Erik Kline
# Internet AD comments for draft-ietf-6lo-multicast-registration-15
CC @ekline

* comment syntax:
  - https://github.com/mnot/ietf-comments/blob/main/format.md

## Comments

### General

* The idnits tools highlights this disclaimer …
# Internet AD comments for draft-ietf-6lo-multicast-registration-15
CC @ekline

* comment syntax:
  - https://github.com/mnot/ietf-comments/blob/main/format.md

## Comments

### General

* The idnits tools highlights this disclaimer text issue:

"""
  (Using the creation date from RFC4861, updated by this document, for
  RFC5378 checks: 2004-07-16)

-- The document seems to lack a disclaimer for pre-RFC5378 work, but may
  have content which was first submitted before 10 November 2008.  If you
  have contacted all the original authors and they are all willing to grant
  the BCP78 rights to the IETF Trust, then this is fine, and you can ignore
  this comment.  If not, you may need to add the pre-RFC5378 disclaimer.
  (See the Legal Provisions document at
  https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info for more information.)
"""

  Do we already know if an author of 4861 has granted BCP78 rights?  If not,
  should this document use the pre-5378 disclaimer?

  Separately: I will take an action item to reach out to RFC 4861 authors
  to see if any have already dealt with this BCP78 rights grant.

### S6

* "This specification Extends RFC6550 to require that"

  This paragraph doesn't have any capitalized normative language.  Should
  this be reworded to get "REQUIRED" in here somewhere?

### S6.4, S6.5, S7.1, S7.2

* Can you explain why there are 2 bit used here instead of just 1?

  Whether an address is multicast or not can be determined by inspecting
  the address itself.  We should only need 1 bit to distinguish unicast
  from anycast... right?

* What is supposed to happen if the address is a multicast address but the
  flags indicate unicast/anycast?  Or vice versa?

### S10

* What is the benefit of including a representation of the uptime?

  It seems like the primary comparison to be used is:

      (this NSSI != the last NSSI seen) : yes or no

  rather than performing uptime calculations.

  Is it simpler to drop this and expand the bits available for the two
  NSSI fields?  This would then be a more generic "generation number
  option."

## Nits

### S3

* I found the wording of "there is no concept of duplication" to be a bit
  awkward.  Perhaps something like "there is no restriction on duplication".

* "so it generally discouraged" -
  "so is generally discouraged"

### S6.1

* "allows to hybrid" ->
  "allows hybrid use of"

### S7.3

* s/FF02::1/ff02::1/g

  (per RFC 5952 S4.3)

### S10

* "then the NSSI is randomly generated loss"

  Does this really mean just "randomly generated"?
2023-11-09
15 (System) Changed action holders to Pascal Thubert (IESG state changed)
2023-11-09
15 Erik Kline IESG state changed to AD Evaluation::Revised I-D Needed from AD Evaluation
2023-07-23
15 (System) Changed action holders to Erik Kline (IESG state changed)
2023-07-23
15 Erik Kline IESG state changed to AD Evaluation from Publication Requested
2023-06-28
15 Carles Gomez
# Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents

*This version is dated 4 July 2022.*

Thank you for your service as a document shepherd. Among the …
# Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents

*This version is dated 4 July 2022.*

Thank you for your service as a document shepherd. Among the responsibilities is
answering the questions in this write-up to give helpful context to Last Call
and Internet Engineering Steering Group ([IESG][1]) reviewers, and your
diligence in completing it is appreciated. The full role of the shepherd is
further described in [RFC 4858][2]. You will need the cooperation of the authors
and editors to complete these checks.

Note that some numbered items contain multiple related questions; please be sure
to answer all of them.

## Document History

1. Does the working group (WG) consensus represent the strong concurrence of a
  few individuals, with others being silent, or did it reach broad agreement?
It received feedback and support from 6lo participants. It was jointly reviewed with ROLL workgroup.
6man was also included in the notifications and review.

2. Was there controversy about particular points, or were there decisions where
  the consensus was particularly rough?
There was nothing controversial.

3. 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

4. For protocol documents, are there existing implementations of the contents of
  the document? Have a significant number of potential implementers indicated
  plans to implement? Are any existing implementations reported somewhere,
  either in the document itself (as [RFC 7942][3] recommends) or elsewhere
  (where)?
This document was developed for Wi-Sun and is incorporated in Wi-Sun FAN 1.1.
So all products that conform FAN 1.1 will also conform this.

## Additional Reviews

5. Do the contents of this document closely interact with technologies in other
  IETF working groups or external organizations, and would it therefore benefit
  from their review? Have those reviews occurred? If yes, describe which
  reviews took place.
ROLL and 6man reviewed the draft. WGLC received feedback from participants in 6lo, ROLL and 6man.
This draft addresses review feedback received from all workgroups.

6. Describe how the document meets any required formal expert review criteria,
  such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.
Not applicable. The document extending IPv6 ND flags and options to support this. The request is reviewed by the 6man workgroup.

7. If the document contains a YANG module, has the final version of the module
  been checked with any of the [recommended validation tools][4] for syntax and
  formatting validation? If there are any resulting errors or warnings, what is
  the justification for not fixing them at this time? Does the YANG module
  comply with the Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA) as specified
  in [RFC 8342][5]?
Not applicable.

8. Describe reviews and automated checks performed to validate sections of the
  final version of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code,
  BNF rules, MIB definitions, CBOR's CDDL, etc.
Not applicable.

## Document Shepherd Checks

9. Based on the shepherd's review of the document, is it their opinion that this
  document is needed, clearly written, complete, correctly designed, and ready
  to be handed off to the responsible Area Director?
Yes.

10. Several IETF Areas have assembled [lists of common issues that their
    reviewers encounter][6]. For which areas have such issues been identified
    and addressed? For which does this still need to happen in subsequent
    reviews?
https://wiki.ietf.org/group/int/IntAreaIssues has been discussed and 6man involved for the changes.


11. What type of RFC publication is being requested on the IETF stream ([Best
    Current Practice][12], [Proposed Standard, Internet Standard][13],
    [Informational, Experimental or Historic][14])? Why is this the proper type
    of RFC? Do all Datatracker state attributes correctly reflect this intent?
Proposed Standard. It is appropriate as it modifies protocol for the deployment it is intended for.

12. Have reasonable efforts been made to remind all authors of the intellectual
    property rights (IPR) disclosure obligations described in [BCP 79][7]? To
    the best of your knowledge, have all required disclosures been filed? If
    not, explain why. If yes, summarize any relevant discussion, including links
    to publicly-available messages when applicable.
Yes. https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/6lo/HoNzI1U2fwgHqICE9kV7UQhf-uc/ has been disclosed by the author.

13. Has each author, editor, and contributor shown their willingness to be
    listed as such? If the total number of authors and editors on the front page
    is greater than five, please provide a justification.
This document has a single author.

14. Document any remaining I-D nits in this document. Simply running the [idnits
    tool][8] is not enough; please review the ["Content Guidelines" on
    authors.ietf.org][15]. (Also note that the current idnits tool generates
    some incorrect warnings; a rewrite is underway.)
Authors were notified on I-D nits found in -14 and it is fixed in -15.

15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the [IESG
    Statement on Normative and Informative References][16].
No

16. List any normative references that are not freely available to anyone. Did
    the community have sufficient access to review any such normative
    references?
None

17. Are there any normative downward references (see [RFC 3967][9] and [BCP
    97
][10]) that are not already listed in the [DOWNREF registry][17]? If so,
    list them.
None

18. Are there normative references to documents that are not ready to be
    submitted to the IESG for publication or are otherwise in an unclear state?
    If so, what is the plan for their completion?
No

19. Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? If
    so, does the Datatracker metadata correctly reflect this and are those RFCs
    listed on the title page, in the abstract, and discussed in the
    introduction? If not, explain why and point to the part of the document
    where the relationship of this document to these other RFCs is discussed.
Yes. It updates: 4861, 6550, 6553, 8505, 9010.


20. 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 aspects of the document requiring IANA assignments are
    associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm
    that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm
    that each newly created IANA registry specifies its initial contents,
    allocations procedures, and a reasonable name (see [RFC 8126][11]).
Edits were suggested as part of shepherd review of -14 and have been addressed in -15.
    a) Section 10 defines Consistent Uptime Option (CUO) however IANA registration refers to it as Node Uptime Option
    b) Section 14.3 lists 4 and 5"I" Field RFC 8505 that is already registered, this line is redundant in the IANA section of this document
    c) "P-field values" registry in the IANA request - a more descriptive name for the registry that reflects its purpose for e.g. Address Registration Indicator field?


21. List any new IANA registries that require Designated Expert Review for
    future allocations. Are the instructions to the Designated Expert clear?
    Please include suggestions of designated experts, if appropriate.
None needed

[1]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/
[2]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4858.html
[3]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7942.html
[4]: https://wiki.ietf.org/group/ops/yang-review-tools
[5]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8342.html
[6]: https://wiki.ietf.org/group/iesg/ExpertTopics
[7]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp79
[8]: https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/
[9]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3967.html
[10]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp97
[11]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8126.html
[12]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-5
[13]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.1
[14]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.2
[15]: https://authors.ietf.org/en/content-guidelines-overview
[16]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/normative-informative-references/
[17]: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/downref/

2023-06-28
15 Carles Gomez Responsible AD changed to Erik Kline
2023-06-28
15 Carles Gomez IETF WG state changed to Submitted to IESG for Publication from WG Consensus: Waiting for Write-Up
2023-06-28
15 Carles Gomez IESG state changed to Publication Requested from I-D Exists
2023-06-28
15 Carles Gomez Document is now in IESG state Publication Requested
2023-06-01
15 Shwetha Bhandari IETF WG state changed to WG Consensus: Waiting for Write-Up from WG Document
2023-06-01
15 Shwetha Bhandari
# Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents

*This version is dated 4 July 2022.*

Thank you for your service as a document shepherd. Among the …
# Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents

*This version is dated 4 July 2022.*

Thank you for your service as a document shepherd. Among the responsibilities is
answering the questions in this write-up to give helpful context to Last Call
and Internet Engineering Steering Group ([IESG][1]) reviewers, and your
diligence in completing it is appreciated. The full role of the shepherd is
further described in [RFC 4858][2]. You will need the cooperation of the authors
and editors to complete these checks.

Note that some numbered items contain multiple related questions; please be sure
to answer all of them.

## Document History

1. Does the working group (WG) consensus represent the strong concurrence of a
  few individuals, with others being silent, or did it reach broad agreement?
It received feedback and support from 6lo participants. It was jointly reviewed with ROLL workgroup.
6man was also included in the notifications and review.

2. Was there controversy about particular points, or were there decisions where
  the consensus was particularly rough?
There was nothing controversial.

3. 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

4. For protocol documents, are there existing implementations of the contents of
  the document? Have a significant number of potential implementers indicated
  plans to implement? Are any existing implementations reported somewhere,
  either in the document itself (as [RFC 7942][3] recommends) or elsewhere
  (where)?
This document was developed for Wi-Sun and is incorporated in Wi-Sun FAN 1.1.
So all products that conform FAN 1.1 will also conform this.

## Additional Reviews

5. Do the contents of this document closely interact with technologies in other
  IETF working groups or external organizations, and would it therefore benefit
  from their review? Have those reviews occurred? If yes, describe which
  reviews took place.
ROLL and 6man reviewed the draft. WGLC received feedback from participants in 6lo, ROLL and 6man.
This draft addresses review feedback received from all workgroups.

6. Describe how the document meets any required formal expert review criteria,
  such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.
Not applicable. The document extending IPv6 ND flags and options to support this. The request is reviewed by the 6man workgroup.

7. If the document contains a YANG module, has the final version of the module
  been checked with any of the [recommended validation tools][4] for syntax and
  formatting validation? If there are any resulting errors or warnings, what is
  the justification for not fixing them at this time? Does the YANG module
  comply with the Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA) as specified
  in [RFC 8342][5]?
Not applicable.

8. Describe reviews and automated checks performed to validate sections of the
  final version of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code,
  BNF rules, MIB definitions, CBOR's CDDL, etc.
Not applicable.

## Document Shepherd Checks

9. Based on the shepherd's review of the document, is it their opinion that this
  document is needed, clearly written, complete, correctly designed, and ready
  to be handed off to the responsible Area Director?
Yes.

10. Several IETF Areas have assembled [lists of common issues that their
    reviewers encounter][6]. For which areas have such issues been identified
    and addressed? For which does this still need to happen in subsequent
    reviews?
https://wiki.ietf.org/group/int/IntAreaIssues has been discussed and 6man involved for the changes.


11. What type of RFC publication is being requested on the IETF stream ([Best
    Current Practice][12], [Proposed Standard, Internet Standard][13],
    [Informational, Experimental or Historic][14])? Why is this the proper type
    of RFC? Do all Datatracker state attributes correctly reflect this intent?
Proposed Standard. It is appropriate as it modifies protocol for the deployment it is intended for.

12. Have reasonable efforts been made to remind all authors of the intellectual
    property rights (IPR) disclosure obligations described in [BCP 79][7]? To
    the best of your knowledge, have all required disclosures been filed? If
    not, explain why. If yes, summarize any relevant discussion, including links
    to publicly-available messages when applicable.
Yes. https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/6lo/HoNzI1U2fwgHqICE9kV7UQhf-uc/ has been disclosed by the author.

13. Has each author, editor, and contributor shown their willingness to be
    listed as such? If the total number of authors and editors on the front page
    is greater than five, please provide a justification.
This document has a single author.

14. Document any remaining I-D nits in this document. Simply running the [idnits
    tool][8] is not enough; please review the ["Content Guidelines" on
    authors.ietf.org][15]. (Also note that the current idnits tool generates
    some incorrect warnings; a rewrite is underway.)
Authors were notified on I-D nits found in -14 and it is fixed in -15.

15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the [IESG
    Statement on Normative and Informative References][16].
No

16. List any normative references that are not freely available to anyone. Did
    the community have sufficient access to review any such normative
    references?
None

17. Are there any normative downward references (see [RFC 3967][9] and [BCP
    97
][10]) that are not already listed in the [DOWNREF registry][17]? If so,
    list them.
None

18. Are there normative references to documents that are not ready to be
    submitted to the IESG for publication or are otherwise in an unclear state?
    If so, what is the plan for their completion?
No

19. Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? If
    so, does the Datatracker metadata correctly reflect this and are those RFCs
    listed on the title page, in the abstract, and discussed in the
    introduction? If not, explain why and point to the part of the document
    where the relationship of this document to these other RFCs is discussed.
Yes. It updates: 4861, 6550, 6553, 8505, 9010.


20. 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 aspects of the document requiring IANA assignments are
    associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm
    that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm
    that each newly created IANA registry specifies its initial contents,
    allocations procedures, and a reasonable name (see [RFC 8126][11]).
Edits were suggested as part of shepherd review of -14 and have been addressed in -15.
    a) Section 10 defines Consistent Uptime Option (CUO) however IANA registration refers to it as Node Uptime Option
    b) Section 14.3 lists 4 and 5"I" Field RFC 8505 that is already registered, this line is redundant in the IANA section of this document
    c) "P-field values" registry in the IANA request - a more descriptive name for the registry that reflects its purpose for e.g. Address Registration Indicator field?


21. List any new IANA registries that require Designated Expert Review for
    future allocations. Are the instructions to the Designated Expert clear?
    Please include suggestions of designated experts, if appropriate.
None needed

[1]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/
[2]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4858.html
[3]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7942.html
[4]: https://wiki.ietf.org/group/ops/yang-review-tools
[5]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8342.html
[6]: https://wiki.ietf.org/group/iesg/ExpertTopics
[7]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp79
[8]: https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/
[9]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3967.html
[10]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp97
[11]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8126.html
[12]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-5
[13]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.1
[14]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.2
[15]: https://authors.ietf.org/en/content-guidelines-overview
[16]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/normative-informative-references/
[17]: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/downref/

2023-05-30
15 Pascal Thubert New version available: draft-ietf-6lo-multicast-registration-15.txt
2023-05-30
15 Pascal Thubert New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Pascal Thubert)
2023-05-30
15 Pascal Thubert Uploaded new revision
2023-05-29
14 Shwetha Bhandari
# Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents

*This version is dated 4 July 2022.*

Thank you for your service as a document shepherd. Among the …
# Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents

*This version is dated 4 July 2022.*

Thank you for your service as a document shepherd. Among the responsibilities is
answering the questions in this write-up to give helpful context to Last Call
and Internet Engineering Steering Group ([IESG][1]) reviewers, and your
diligence in completing it is appreciated. The full role of the shepherd is
further described in [RFC 4858][2]. You will need the cooperation of the authors
and editors to complete these checks.

Note that some numbered items contain multiple related questions; please be sure
to answer all of them.

## Document History

1. Does the working group (WG) consensus represent the strong concurrence of a
  few individuals, with others being silent, or did it reach broad agreement?
It received feedback and support from 6lo participants. It was jointly reviewed with ROLL workgroup.
6man was also included in the notifications and review.

2. Was there controversy about particular points, or were there decisions where
  the consensus was particularly rough?
There was nothin controversial.

3. 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

4. For protocol documents, are there existing implementations of the contents of
  the document? Have a significant number of potential implementers indicated
  plans to implement? Are any existing implementations reported somewhere,
  either in the document itself (as [RFC 7942][3] recommends) or elsewhere
  (where)?

## Additional Reviews

5. Do the contents of this document closely interact with technologies in other
  IETF working groups or external organizations, and would it therefore benefit
  from their review? Have those reviews occurred? If yes, describe which
  reviews took place.
ROLL and 6man reviewed the draft. WGLC received feedback from participants in 6lo, ROLL and 6man.
-14 version of the draft addresses review feedback received from all workgroups.

6. Describe how the document meets any required formal expert review criteria,
  such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.
Not applicable. The document extending IPv6 ND flags and options to support this. The request is reviewed by the 6man workgroup.

7. If the document contains a YANG module, has the final version of the module
  been checked with any of the [recommended validation tools][4] for syntax and
  formatting validation? If there are any resulting errors or warnings, what is
  the justification for not fixing them at this time? Does the YANG module
  comply with the Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA) as specified
  in [RFC 8342][5]?
Not applicable.

8. Describe reviews and automated checks performed to validate sections of the
  final version of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code,
  BNF rules, MIB definitions, CBOR's CDDL, etc.
Not applicable.

## Document Shepherd Checks

9. Based on the shepherd's review of the document, is it their opinion that this
  document is needed, clearly written, complete, correctly designed, and ready
  to be handed off to the responsible Area Director?
Yes.

10. Several IETF Areas have assembled [lists of common issues that their
    reviewers encounter][6]. For which areas have such issues been identified
    and addressed? For which does this still need to happen in subsequent
    reviews?
https://wiki.ietf.org/group/int/IntAreaIssues has been discussed and 6man involved for the changes.


11. What type of RFC publication is being requested on the IETF stream ([Best
    Current Practice][12], [Proposed Standard, Internet Standard][13],
    [Informational, Experimental or Historic][14])? Why is this the proper type
    of RFC? Do all Datatracker state attributes correctly reflect this intent?
Proposed Standard. It is appropriate as it modifies protocol for the deployment it is intended for.

12. Have reasonable efforts been made to remind all authors of the intellectual
    property rights (IPR) disclosure obligations described in [BCP 79][7]? To
    the best of your knowledge, have all required disclosures been filed? If
    not, explain why. If yes, summarize any relevant discussion, including links
    to publicly-available messages when applicable.
Yes. https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/6lo/HoNzI1U2fwgHqICE9kV7UQhf-uc/ has been disclosed by the author.

13. Has each author, editor, and contributor shown their willingness to be
    listed as such? If the total number of authors and editors on the front page
    is greater than five, please provide a justification.
This document has a single author.

14. Document any remaining I-D nits in this document. Simply running the [idnits
    tool][8] is not enough; please review the ["Content Guidelines" on
    authors.ietf.org][15]. (Also note that the current idnits tool generates
    some incorrect warnings; a rewrite is underway.)
Authors are notified on I-D nits found in -14. -15 expected to address this

15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the [IESG
    Statement on Normative and Informative References][16].
Normative reference to an informational document: RFC 9030

16. List any normative references that are not freely available to anyone. Did
    the community have sufficient access to review any such normative
    references?
None

17. Are there any normative downward references (see [RFC 3967][9] and [BCP
    97
][10]) that are not already listed in the [DOWNREF registry][17]? If so,
    list them.
None

18. Are there normative references to documents that are not ready to be
    submitted to the IESG for publication or are otherwise in an unclear state?
    If so, what is the plan for their completion?
No

19. Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? If
    so, does the Datatracker metadata correctly reflect this and are those RFCs
    listed on the title page, in the abstract, and discussed in the
    introduction? If not, explain why and point to the part of the document
    where the relationship of this document to these other RFCs is discussed.
Yes. It updates: 4861, 6550, 6553, 8505, 9010.
6553 is not mentioned in introduction or abstract


20. 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 aspects of the document requiring IANA assignments are
    associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm
    that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm
    that each newly created IANA registry specifies its initial contents,
    allocations procedures, and a reasonable name (see [RFC 8126][11]).
Edits needed
    a) Section 10 defines Consistent Uptime Option (CUO) however IANA registration refers to it as Node Uptime Option
    b) Section 14.3 lists 4 and 5"I" Field RFC 8505 that is already registered, this line is redundant in the IANA section of this document
    c) "P-field values" registry in the IANA request - a more descriptive name for the registry that reflects its purpose for e.g. Address Registration Indicator field?


21. List any new IANA registries that require Designated Expert Review for
    future allocations. Are the instructions to the Designated Expert clear?
    Please include suggestions of designated experts, if appropriate.
None needed

[1]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/
[2]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4858.html
[3]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7942.html
[4]: https://wiki.ietf.org/group/ops/yang-review-tools
[5]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8342.html
[6]: https://wiki.ietf.org/group/iesg/ExpertTopics
[7]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp79
[8]: https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/
[9]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3967.html
[10]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp97
[11]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8126.html
[12]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-5
[13]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.1
[14]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.2
[15]: https://authors.ietf.org/en/content-guidelines-overview
[16]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/normative-informative-references/
[17]: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/downref/

2023-05-29
14 Shwetha Bhandari
# Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents

*This version is dated 4 July 2022.*

Thank you for your service as a document shepherd. Among the …
# Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents

*This version is dated 4 July 2022.*

Thank you for your service as a document shepherd. Among the responsibilities is
answering the questions in this write-up to give helpful context to Last Call
and Internet Engineering Steering Group ([IESG][1]) reviewers, and your
diligence in completing it is appreciated. The full role of the shepherd is
further described in [RFC 4858][2]. You will need the cooperation of the authors
and editors to complete these checks.

Note that some numbered items contain multiple related questions; please be sure
to answer all of them.

## Document History

1. Does the working group (WG) consensus represent the strong concurrence of a
  few individuals, with others being silent, or did it reach broad agreement?
It received feedback and support from 6lo participants. It was jointly reviewed with ROLL workgroup.
6man was also included in the notifications and review.

2. Was there controversy about particular points, or were there decisions where
  the consensus was particularly rough?
There was nothin controversial.

3. 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

4. For protocol documents, are there existing implementations of the contents of
  the document? Have a significant number of potential implementers indicated
  plans to implement? Are any existing implementations reported somewhere,
  either in the document itself (as [RFC 7942][3] recommends) or elsewhere
  (where)?

## Additional Reviews

5. Do the contents of this document closely interact with technologies in other
  IETF working groups or external organizations, and would it therefore benefit
  from their review? Have those reviews occurred? If yes, describe which
  reviews took place.
ROLL and 6man reviewed the draft. WGLC received feedback from participants in 6lo, ROLL and 6man.
-14 version of the draft addresses review feedback received from all workgroups.

6. Describe how the document meets any required formal expert review criteria,
  such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.
Not applicable. The document extending IPv6 ND flags and options to support this. The request is reviewed by the 6man workgroup.

7. If the document contains a YANG module, has the final version of the module
  been checked with any of the [recommended validation tools][4] for syntax and
  formatting validation? If there are any resulting errors or warnings, what is
  the justification for not fixing them at this time? Does the YANG module
  comply with the Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA) as specified
  in [RFC 8342][5]?
Not applicable.

8. Describe reviews and automated checks performed to validate sections of the
  final version of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code,
  BNF rules, MIB definitions, CBOR's CDDL, etc.
Not applicable.

## Document Shepherd Checks

9. Based on the shepherd's review of the document, is it their opinion that this
  document is needed, clearly written, complete, correctly designed, and ready
  to be handed off to the responsible Area Director?
Yes.

10. Several IETF Areas have assembled [lists of common issues that their
    reviewers encounter][6]. For which areas have such issues been identified
    and addressed? For which does this still need to happen in subsequent
    reviews?
https://wiki.ietf.org/group/int/IntAreaIssues has been discussed and 6man involved for the changes.


11. What type of RFC publication is being requested on the IETF stream ([Best
    Current Practice][12], [Proposed Standard, Internet Standard][13],
    [Informational, Experimental or Historic][14])? Why is this the proper type
    of RFC? Do all Datatracker state attributes correctly reflect this intent?
Proposed Standard. It is appropriate as it modifies protocol for the deployment it is intended for.

12. Have reasonable efforts been made to remind all authors of the intellectual
    property rights (IPR) disclosure obligations described in [BCP 79][7]? To
    the best of your knowledge, have all required disclosures been filed? If
    not, explain why. If yes, summarize any relevant discussion, including links
    to publicly-available messages when applicable.
Yes. https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/6lo/HoNzI1U2fwgHqICE9kV7UQhf-uc/ has been disclosed by the author.

13. Has each author, editor, and contributor shown their willingness to be
    listed as such? If the total number of authors and editors on the front page
    is greater than five, please provide a justification.
This document has a single author.

14. Document any remaining I-D nits in this document. Simply running the [idnits
    tool][8] is not enough; please review the ["Content Guidelines" on
    authors.ietf.org][15]. (Also note that the current idnits tool generates
    some incorrect warnings; a rewrite is underway.)
Authors are notified on I-D nits found in -14. -15 expected to address this

15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the [IESG
    Statement on Normative and Informative References][16].
Normative reference to an informational document: RFC 9030

16. List any normative references that are not freely available to anyone. Did
    the community have sufficient access to review any such normative
    references?
None

17. Are there any normative downward references (see [RFC 3967][9] and [BCP
    97
][10]) that are not already listed in the [DOWNREF registry][17]? If so,
    list them.
None

18. Are there normative references to documents that are not ready to be
    submitted to the IESG for publication or are otherwise in an unclear state?
    If so, what is the plan for their completion?
No

19. Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? If
    so, does the Datatracker metadata correctly reflect this and are those RFCs
    listed on the title page, in the abstract, and discussed in the
    introduction? If not, explain why and point to the part of the document
    where the relationship of this document to these other RFCs is discussed.
Yes. It updates: 4861, 6550, 6553, 8505, 9010.
6553 is not mentioned in introduction or abstract


20. 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 aspects of the document requiring IANA assignments are
    associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm
    that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm
    that each newly created IANA registry specifies its initial contents,
    allocations procedures, and a reasonable name (see [RFC 8126][11]).
Edits needed
    a) Section 10 defines Consistent Uptime Option (CUO) however IANA registration refers to it as Node Uptime Option
    b) Section 14.3 lists 4 and 5"I" Field RFC 8505 that is already registered, this line is redundant in the IANA section of this document
    c) "P-field values" registry in the IANA request - a more descriptive name for the registry that reflects its purpose for e.g. Address Registration Indicator field?


21. List any new IANA registries that require Designated Expert Review for
    future allocations. Are the instructions to the Designated Expert clear?
    Please include suggestions of designated experts, if appropriate.
None needed

[1]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/
[2]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4858.html
[3]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7942.html
[4]: https://wiki.ietf.org/group/ops/yang-review-tools
[5]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8342.html
[6]: https://wiki.ietf.org/group/iesg/ExpertTopics
[7]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp79
[8]: https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/
[9]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3967.html
[10]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp97
[11]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8126.html
[12]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-5
[13]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.1
[14]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.2
[15]: https://authors.ietf.org/en/content-guidelines-overview
[16]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/normative-informative-references/
[17]: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/downref/

2023-05-29
14 Shwetha Bhandari Changed consensus to Yes from Unknown
2023-05-29
14 Shwetha Bhandari Intended Status changed to Proposed Standard from None
2023-05-29
14 Shwetha Bhandari Notification list changed to shwetha.bhandari@gmail.com because the document shepherd was set
2023-05-29
14 Shwetha Bhandari Document shepherd changed to Shwetha Bhandari
2023-03-08
14 Pascal Thubert New version available: draft-ietf-6lo-multicast-registration-14.txt
2023-03-08
14 Pascal Thubert New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Pascal Thubert)
2023-03-08
14 Pascal Thubert Uploaded new revision
2023-03-07
13 Pascal Thubert New version available: draft-ietf-6lo-multicast-registration-13.txt
2023-03-07
13 Pascal Thubert New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Pascal Thubert)
2023-03-07
13 Pascal Thubert Uploaded new revision
2022-11-22
12 Pascal Thubert New version available: draft-ietf-6lo-multicast-registration-12.txt
2022-11-22
12 Pascal Thubert New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Pascal Thubert)
2022-11-22
12 Pascal Thubert Uploaded new revision
2022-10-24
11 Pascal Thubert New version available: draft-ietf-6lo-multicast-registration-11.txt
2022-10-24
11 Pascal Thubert New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Pascal Thubert)
2022-10-24
11 Pascal Thubert Uploaded new revision
2022-10-13
10 Pascal Thubert New version available: draft-ietf-6lo-multicast-registration-10.txt
2022-10-13
10 Pascal Thubert New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Pascal Thubert)
2022-10-13
10 Pascal Thubert Uploaded new revision
2022-08-16
09 Pascal Thubert New version available: draft-ietf-6lo-multicast-registration-09.txt
2022-08-16
09 (System) New version approved
2022-08-16
09 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Pascal Thubert
2022-08-16
09 Pascal Thubert Uploaded new revision
2022-07-25
08 Pascal Thubert New version available: draft-ietf-6lo-multicast-registration-08.txt
2022-07-25
08 Pascal Thubert New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Pascal Thubert)
2022-07-25
08 Pascal Thubert Uploaded new revision
2022-06-22
07 Pascal Thubert New version available: draft-ietf-6lo-multicast-registration-07.txt
2022-06-22
07 Pascal Thubert New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Pascal Thubert)
2022-06-22
07 Pascal Thubert Uploaded new revision
2022-05-31
06 Pascal Thubert New version available: draft-ietf-6lo-multicast-registration-06.txt
2022-05-31
06 Pascal Thubert New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Pascal Thubert)
2022-05-31
06 Pascal Thubert Uploaded new revision
2022-05-18
05 Pascal Thubert New version available: draft-ietf-6lo-multicast-registration-05.txt
2022-05-18
05 Pascal Thubert New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Pascal Thubert)
2022-05-18
05 Pascal Thubert Uploaded new revision
2022-03-20
04 Dominique Barthel Added to session: IETF-113: roll  Wed-1300
2022-03-03
04 Pascal Thubert New version available: draft-ietf-6lo-multicast-registration-04.txt
2022-03-03
04 (System) New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Pascal Thubert)
2022-03-03
04 Pascal Thubert Uploaded new revision
2021-12-13
03 Pascal Thubert New version available: draft-ietf-6lo-multicast-registration-03.txt
2021-12-13
03 (System) New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Pascal Thubert)
2021-12-13
03 Pascal Thubert Uploaded new revision
2021-11-15
Tina Dang Posted related IPR disclosure Cisco Systems, Inc.'s Statement about IPR related to draft-ietf-6lo-multicast-registration
2021-11-08
02 Pascal Thubert New version available: draft-ietf-6lo-multicast-registration-02.txt
2021-11-08
02 (System) New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Pascal Thubert)
2021-11-08
02 Pascal Thubert Uploaded new revision
2021-10-22
01 Pascal Thubert New version available: draft-ietf-6lo-multicast-registration-01.txt
2021-10-22
01 (System) New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Pascal Thubert)
2021-10-22
01 Pascal Thubert Uploaded new revision
2021-10-21
00 Shwetha Bhandari Changed document external resources from: None to:

github_repo https://github.com/pthubert/6lo-multicast-registration
github_username pthubert
2021-10-21
00 Shwetha Bhandari This document now replaces draft-thubert-6lo-multicast-registration instead of None
2021-10-21
00 Pascal Thubert New version available: draft-ietf-6lo-multicast-registration-00.txt
2021-10-21
00 (System) WG -00 approved
2021-10-21
00 Pascal Thubert Set submitter to "Pascal Thubert ", replaces to draft-thubert-6lo-multicast-registration and sent approval email to group chairs: 6lo-chairs@ietf.org
2021-10-21
00 Pascal Thubert Uploaded new revision