As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document
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)?
A: Informational RFC
Q: Why is this the proper type of RFC?
A: This is a non-normative architectural document providing design guidelines, not a protocol specification.
Q: Is this type of RFC indicated in the title page header?
Q: (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:
A: This document is the first volume of the 6TiSCH architecture of an
IPv6 Multi-Link subnet that is composed of a high speed powered
backbone and a number of IEEE802.15.4 TSCH low-power wireless
networks attached and synchronized by Backbone Routers. The
architecture defines mechanisms to establish and maintain routing and
scheduling in a centralized, distributed, or mixed fashion.
Q: Working Group Summary
A: The general architectural principles appear to be well supported and understood. Whilst there have been some controversial discussions within the WG, those have tended to be around potential future implementation decisions rather than with the architecture as a whole.
This document was developed over a period of 2 years. With regular bi-weekly calls with members of the work group.
Minutes and discussions are maintained on etherpad available here:
For the security section a design team was formed and the proposal of the text in this section was discussed with the work group over the mailer.
This is the base document for the 6tisch work group to build over with requirements to other work groups as well - wg 6lo in particular. There has been collaboration by means of discussions over email and participation by members in the bi-weekly calls to arrive at consensus.
Q: 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?
A: There have been two formal WG last calls, with a number of reviewers. The comments and changes are documented as tickets to this document in the tracker.
There have been implementations and interoperability testing at 3 plugfests - at IETF89 London, IETF90 Toronto and another planned for IETF93 Prague.
These plugfests demonstrated inter-operation between different hardware and software implementations of 6TiSCH technology proposed by 6tisch workgroup. The details on the focus of these plugfest can be found in draft-ietf-6tisch-minimal.
This is the first volume of the 6tisch architecture and the claims/proposals presented in this draft are of good quality and can be verified from the outcome of the plugfests.
Q: Who is the Document Shepherd? Who is the Responsible Area
A: Document Shepherd: Shwetha Bhandari
A: Responsible AD : Brian Haberman
(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
A: Document has been reviewed by a number of individuals, 100s of emails exchanged, and 8 versions over 2 years.
(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or
breadth of the reviews that have been performed?
(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
A: 6tisch i has a large email subscriber base with active members from other SDOs - IEEE and ETSI and work groups: ROLL, 6LO, but, no, we have not reached out for a community-specific review.
(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
A: The shepherd has no specific concerns. The responsible area director has followed this group closely.
(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.
(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document?
If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR
A: Following IPRs are filed:
Cisco - https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/2214/ .
Linear Technology - https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/2240/
These disclosures were made before the draft was adopted as a work group 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?
A: The WG chairs believe the consensus on what is in this document is solid. Areas of concern have been discussed at length, wordsmithed, and general agreement achieved.
(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.)
(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
A: Yes - part of the tool submission
(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review
criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.
(13) Have all references within this document been identified as
either normative or informative?
(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?
(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.
(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.
(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).
(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.
(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.