[Document Shepherd Write-Up version of 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.
This is a normative specification for a protocol (an IP-over-foo
adaptation layer).
(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
Relevant content can frequently be found in the abstract
and/or introduction of the document. If not, this may be
an indication that there are deficiencies in the abstract
or introduction.
Bluetooth Low Energy (BT-LE) is a low power air interface technology
defined by the Bluetooth Special Interest Group (BT SIG). While
Bluetooth has been widely implemented, the low power version of
Bluetooth is a new specification and enables the use of this air
interface with devices such as sensors, smart meters, appliances, etc.
The low power variant of Bluetooth is commonly specified in revision
4.0 of the Bluetooth specifications and commonly referred to as
Bluetooth 4.0. This document describes how IPv6 is transported over
Bluetooth Low Energy using 6LoWPAN techniques.
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?
This document represents the consensus of the 6LoWPAN WG how to apply
the technology developed for IEEE 802.15.4 to BT-LE.
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 is a product of the 6LoWPAN working group and has been
reviewed by a small number of working group members. As far as known
to this Shepherd, so far it has been implemented by one company (this
implementation has been demonstrated in the hallway of the IETF 83
meeting). The authors are aware of several other companies that are
interested, including one that has begun implementing. The Bluetooth
4.0 specification and thus BT-LE itself is being implemented widely
(e.g., in the iPhone 4S and iPad 3 and certain modern Macs), so it is
important to agree on an IP-over-foo specification for this link
layer.
Personnel
Who is the Document Shepherd? Who is the Responsible Area
Director?
Carsten Bormann is the Document Shepherd.
Ralph Droms is the Responsible Area Director.
(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.
The Shepherd has personally reviewed the document, which also led to a
bit of delay and a number of editorial revisions after passing WGLC.
The Shepherd now believes that the document is ready for forwarding to
the IESG for publication as a Proposed Standard.
(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or
breadth of the reviews that have been performed?
The document is an output document of the 6LoWPAN WG. However, the
level of detail that was reached by the WG comments during WGLC was
limited. Therefore, the Shepherd did his own detailed review, which
resulted in some editorial improvements after WGLC completion. To
further increase confidence, a separate review was held with the
intarea WG from March 30 to April 13; this was also relayed to the
6man WG on April 4. Ultimately, more input will only come from
implementers -- so far there appears to be only one implementation
information from which has been made public.
(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.
No -- the document does not appear to require additional broader
review. As with many IP-over-foo documents, the document bridges
areas of knowledge that are available in the IETF and the Bluetooth
SIG, respectively. The bridging has been mainly done by the authors
(note that the draft has gained a relatively diverse set of authors in
the process.).
(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.
There are no remaining technical concerns with the document. One
concern might be that there is limited feedback from implementation
and interoperability testing at this point, however that is quite
acceptable for a specification just reaching Proposed Standard level.
It would be normal if it turns out, within a couple of years after
implementation has taken off, that implementation experience motivates
clarifications and a revised specification.
(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.
Yes, this has been re-confirmed by each individual author on
2012-05-13/-14.
(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document?
If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR
disclosures.
No IPR disclosures have been made.
(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?
There is working group consensus behind this document. There is a
limited number of working group participants that are interested in
this specific link-layer technology and qualified for making
contributions and comments.
(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.)
The Shepherd is not aware of any discontent related to the specification.
(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.
The Shepherd has verified to the best of his ability that there are no
ID nits in this draft.
(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review
criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.
No such formal review appears to be required.
(13) Have all references within this document been identified as
either normative or informative?
The Document Shepherd believes all references are appropriately split.
(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?
No. (This specification is dependent on draft-ietf-6lowpan-nd, which
is at the stage of being processed after IETF last call.)
(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.
There are no down-references; note that there are normative references
to IEEE 802 and the Bluetooth 4.0 specification.
(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.
(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).
There are no IANA considerations for this document, as the relevant
code point needs to be allocated by Bluetooth SIG (see also section
3.1).
(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.
(None.)
(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.
(None.)