Skip to main content

Shepherd writeup

(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?

A. draft-ietf-6lo-nfc-18 draft is a 'standards track' document. The intended
status is indicated in the document header. Since it is defining ipv6-over NFC
adaptation layer, it is 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:

   Near field communication (NFC) is a set of standards for smartphones
   and portable devices to establish radio communication with each other
   by touching them together or bringing them into proximity, usually no
   more than 10 cm. The NFC technology has been widely implemented and available
   in mobile phones, laptop computers, and many other devices.  This
   document describes how IPv6 is transmitted over NFC using 6LowPAN

   Considering the potential for exponential growth in the number of
   heterogeneous air interface technologies, NFC would be widely used as
   one of the other air interface technologies, such as Bluetooth Low
   Energy (BT-LE), Wi-Fi, and so on.  Each of the heterogeneous air
   interface technologies has its own characteristics, which cannot be
   covered by the other technologies, so various kinds of air interface
   technologies would co-exist together.  Therefore, it is required for
   them to communicate with each other. Running IPv6 over the various low
   power L2 technologies with the modified 6lowpan stack ensures
   interoperability among the devices with various heterogeneous air interfaces.

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?

A. This document has been revised several times based on working group
comments. It has been reviewed by
   several experienced 6lo working group members including Pascal Thubert and
   Dave Thaler  who have been designated reviewers of this document. It has has
   also received shepherd's comments and went through two WGLC ( one short and
   one regular one).

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?


The document has been reviewed and discussed by many 6lo experts in the WG
including Pascal Thubert, Carsten Bormann,
 Dave Thaler, Samita Chakrabarti, Gabriel Montenegro, James Woodyatt, Alex
 Petrescue, Michael Richardson.

An implementation of 6lo-NFC exists and they participated on a 6lo plugtests.
The document effort is also socialized with NFC-Forum and they are well aware
this document. Access to the NFC spec has been available for those that have
needed it.


Who is the Document Shepherd? Who is the Responsible Area Director?
Document Shepherd: Carles Gomez, 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. This document has had two document shepherds. Samita Chakrabarti reviewed
the -09 version of the document and provided comments. She considered that the
-10 version of 6lo-nfc document was ready for publication. The IESG evaluated
version -13 of the document. At that moment, a new, and the current shepherd
(Carles Gomez) was assigned to the document. After the IESG evaluation, the
draft was updated several times, in order to address the IESG comments. The
current shepherd participated actively in a major (mostly editorial) rewrite of
the document, leading to version -17 of the document. The current shepherd
considered that -17 was ready for publication. (Note that, as of the last
update of this writeup, a subsequent draft revision, i.e. -18 has been produced
in order to address a comment by the AD, Erik Kline, regarding security.)

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

A. The document is ready for IESG review.

(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

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.  It has been reviewed by a number of WG members and by the former and the
current shepherd. It 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. An IPR Disclosure has been filed and recorded in IETF page

(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If so,
summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures. A.
Yes. There is no objection at the WG about the IPR filed for the 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 working group as a whole understands and agrees with the progress of
this document.

(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. No.

(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.

No issues found.

(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
A. No.

(15) Are there downward normative references references (see RFC 3967)? If so,
list these downward references
 to support the Area Director in the Last Call procedure.

A. None.

(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.

No. This document will not update any base 6lo documents or 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. 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.(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?

A. Not Applicable