Shepherd writeup
draft-ietf-6lo-plc-06

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.

Back