(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 properly indicated in the draft.
(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 document defines the 6top Protocol (6P), which enables
distributed scheduling in 6TiSCH networks. 6P allows neighbor nodes
to add/delete TSCH cells to one another. 6P is part of the 6TiSCH
Operation Sublayer (6top), the next higher layer to the IEEE Std
802.15.4 TSCH medium access control layer. The 6P layer is formed by
the 6top Protocol defined in this document and 6top Scheduling
Function(s). A 6top Scheduling Function (SF) decides when to add/
delete cells, and triggers 6P Transactions. This document lists the
requirements for an SF, but leaves the definition of SFs out of
scope.
Working Group Summary
No controversy.
The design was complex due to the need to save exchanges and yet provide
transactional outcomes. The next generation of the work may be done at IEEE,
e.g. within IEEE Std. 802.12
Document Quality
This specification was implemented in openWSN and contiki.
It was interop tested at the 6TiSCH F-interop in Prague:
http://www.etsi.org/news-events/events/1197-6tisch-interop-prague-2017
Return from experimentation is implemented in the draft
Personnel
Document Shepherd: Pascal Thubert
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.
The document was ready for publication.
The shepherd most asked for clarifying information, in order to make the
reading smoother for a first comer.
(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or
breadth of the reviews that have been performed?
No concern. The document is implementable.
(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, this is a self-contained document
(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.
No concern. Just awareness that the work may be migrated to IEEE after this
RFC.
(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, there is no known IPR on 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.
There is no known IPR on this 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?
Full consensus
(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 such problem
(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.
There is a downref to RFC8137. Maybe RFC8137 should have been std track.
The downref seems harmless though.
(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review
criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.
The document has a IANA requirements.
IANA policies are indicated are described in [RFC8126]
(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?
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.
Downref to RFC8137
(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).
The document has a IANA requirements conforming the above.
IANA policies are indicated are described in [RFC8126]
(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.
The 6P Scheduling Function Identifiers registry requires expert review for
the second half of the range. Expertise required would be the general art of
6TiSCH and existing SFs to avoid duplication.
(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.
N/A