As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document
Shepherd Write-Up. Changes are expected over time.
This version is dated 1 November 2019.
(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?
[Shepherd response] Proposed Standard (the title page header reads “Standards
Track”). This is the proper type of RFC because the document specifies the
adaptation layer to support IPv6 over various Power Line Communication (PLC)
technologies.
(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:
Power Line Communication (PLC), namely using the electric-power lines
for indoor and outdoor communications, has been widely applied to
support Advanced Metering Infrastructure (AMI), especially smart
meters for electricity. The inherent advantage of existing
electricity infrastructure facilitates the expansion of PLC
deployments, and moreover, a wide variety of accessible devices
raises the potential demand of IPv6 for future applications. This
document describes how IPv6 packets are transported over constrained
PLC networks, such as ITU-T G.9903, IEEE 1901.1 and IEEE 1901.2.
Working Group Summary:
There has been no particular WG controversy regarding this document. The
document has progressed with WG consensus.
Document Quality:
There exists a production-quality implementation of this specification from a
large vendor. Michael Richardson provided a detailed review during the WGLC
(which led to revisions -03 and -04), with a particular focus on security. His
comments were satisfactorily addressed.
Personnel:
The document shepherd is Carles Gomez. The responsible AD is Erik Kline.
(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.
[Shepherd response] The shepherd reviewed version -04 of the draft. The
shepherd’s comments were mostly editorial, although a few technical points were
found as well. The authors updated the draft to address the shepherd’s
comments, and produced revision -05. The shepherd believes that, in its current
version (-05), the document is ready for being forwarded to the IESG.
(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of
the reviews that have been performed? [Shepherd response] No such concerns. The
document has been discussed and presented at many IETF meetings, with
significant progress happening through numerous updates even happening before
the document became a WG document. Michael Richardson provided a detailed and
comprehenseive review during WGLC, which led to updates -03 and -04.
(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. [Shepherd
response] No.
(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. [Shepherd response]
No such concerns.
(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? [Shepherd response] All authors have
confirmed that they are not aware of any IPR that applies to this document.
(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If so,
summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures.
[Shepherd response] No IPR disclosure referencing this document has been filed.
(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? [Shepherd response] There is good
WG consensus behind 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.) [Shepherd response] No.
(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. [Shepherd
response] The Idnits tool indicates no errors or flaws. There are a few
warnings and comments. A summary of the Idnits tool output is shown next:
Checking boilerplate required by RFC 5378 and the IETF Trust (see
https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info):
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
No issues found here.
Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/1id-guidelines.txt:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
No issues found here.
Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist :
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
No issues found here.
Miscellaneous warnings:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
== The copyright year in the IETF Trust and authors Copyright Line does not
match the current year
== The document seems to lack the recommended RFC 2119 boilerplate, even if
it appears to use RFC 2119 keywords -- however, there's a paragraph with
a matching beginning. Boilerplate error?
(The document does seem to have the reference to RFC 2119 which the
ID-Checklist requires).
-- The document date (October 28, 2020) is 68 days in the past. Is this
intentional?
Checking references for intended status: Proposed Standard
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
(See RFCs 3967 and 4897 for information about using normative references
to lower-maturity documents in RFCs)
== Outdated reference: A later version (-03) exists of
draft-ietf-emu-eap-noob-02
-- Unexpected draft version: The latest known version of
draft-ietf-roll-aodv-rpl is -07, but you're referring to -08.
== Outdated reference: A later version (-28) exists of
draft-ietf-roll-unaware-leaves-22
-- Obsolete informational reference (is this intentional?): RFC 3315
(Obsoleted by RFC 8415)
Summary: 0 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 4 warnings (==), 3 comments (--).
(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such
as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews. [Shepherd
response] N/A.
(13) Have all references within this document been identified as either
normative or informative? [Shepherd response] 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? [Shepherd response] All normative
references have already been published.
(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. [Shepherd response] There are no downward normative references in
this document.
(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. [Shepherd response] This document does not update or change the
status of any existing RFC.
(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 8126). [Shepherd response] This document requires no IANA actions.
(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. [Shepherd response] N/A.
(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, YANG modules, etc. [Shepherd response] N/A.
(20) If the document contains a YANG module, has the module been checked with
any of the recommended validation tools
(https://trac.ietf.org/trac/ops/wiki/yang-review-tools) 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
RFC8342? [Shepherd response] The document does not contain a YANG module.