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 24 February 2012.
(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?
Proposed Standard
(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
This specification updates RFC 6775 - 6LoWPAN Neighbor Discovery, to
clarify the role of the protocol as a registration technique,
simplify the registration operation in 6LoWPAN routers, as well as to
provide enhancements to the registration capabilities and mobility
detection for different network topologies.
Working Group Summary
There has been plenty of discussion about these extensions in the
working group. This document started in Oct. 2016 as an individual
submission, but ideas were discussed even previous to that, including a
requirements document (draft-thubert-6lo-rfc6775-update-reqs) which fed
into this document, 6775bis. There have been 10 revisions based on
implementation experience. Initially, it was a controversial document
since it affects how IPv6 ND works in certain networks. This prompted
some concern from IPv6 folks (e.g., Lorenzo Colitti) concerned that
these modifications were not generally applicable to all link layers or
situations. In response, the authors made changes to clarify the scope
of the extensions. Section 2, in particular was modified as a result of
these debates and exchanges.
Document Quality
These extensions have been implemented in open source (OpenWSN, Cisco
IOS) and has been tested in 6TiSCH/6lo ETSI Plugtest.
Personnel
Who is the Document Shepherd? Who is the Responsible Area
Director?
Shepherd: Gabriel Montenegro
AD: 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.
I have reviewed the document and identified several editorial issues,
but these should not block IESG review and can be addressed as part of
IETF LC and IESG comments.
(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or
breadth of the reviews that have been performed?
This document has received in-depth reviews. No concerns.
(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.
This documents will benefit from operational and privacy review, but
nothing beyond the normal.
(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.
(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.
Authors have confirmed that they have no knowledge of relevant IPR.
(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document?
If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR
disclosures.
No disclosure.
(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?
At this point, it is solid. There was a point when it was very
controversial as noted above.
(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.)
No.
(11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this
document. (See https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts
Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be
thorough.
== Outdated reference: A later version (-05) exists of
draft-ietf-6lo-backbone-router-04
== Outdated reference: A later version (-09) exists of
draft-ietf-6lo-nfc-08
== Outdated reference: draft-ietf-bier-architecture has been
published as
RFC 8279
Note: there are also two ignorable warnings about non-existent
references which do exist. Idnits just does not expect to find them in
an "Exernal Informative References" section.
(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review
criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.
Not applicable.
(13) Have all references within this document been identified as
either normative or informative?
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?
Not applicable.
(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.
Only RFC8126 (Guidance IANA Considerations), which shouldn't be an
issue. Alternatively, this could be moved to informational.
(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.
Per the header of the document:
"Updates: 6775 (if approved) "
(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).
Looks good.
(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.
Nothing new under expert review.
(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.
Not applicable.