[Write-up template version dated September 17, 2008.]
Request for publication of draft-ietf-6lowpan-nd-18.txt
(1.a) Who is the Document Shepherd for this document? Has the
Document Shepherd personally reviewed this version of the
document and, in particular, does he or she believe this
version is ready for forwarding to the IESG for publication?
The Document Shepherd is 6LoWPAN WG co-chair Carsten Bormann
(firstname.lastname@example.org). He has personally reviewed the document and believes
that it is ready for forwarding to the IESG for publication.
(1.b) Has the document had adequate review both from key WG members
and from key non-WG members? Does the Document Shepherd have
any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that
have been performed?
The document is one of the core output documents of the 6LoWPAN WG.
It has received wide review as well as extensive interop testing in
ZigBee IP and IPSO events.
(1.c) Does the Document Shepherd have concerns that the document
needs more review from a particular or broader perspective,
e.g., security, operational complexity, someone familiar with
AAA, internationalization or XML?
No -- there are no concerns that the documents require additional
(1.d) Does the Document Shepherd have any specific concerns or
issues 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. Has an IPR disclosure related to this document
been filed? If so, please include a reference to the
disclosure and summarize the WG discussion and conclusion on
The document is the result of a "reboot" of its development process,
in which a number of simplifications have been made by striking
potential requirements that earlier versions (pre -09) attempted to
address. As it stands, it now represents a strong WG consensus.
No IPR disclosures have been made.
(1.e) 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 strong working group consensus behind this document. It is
the result of several years of work that has been validated by
extensive implementation effort. A significant number of WG members
have commented on the technical substance and language of the
(1.f) 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
entered into the ID Tracker.)
The shepherd is not aware of any discontent related to the specification.
(1.g) Has the Document Shepherd personally verified that the
document satisfies all ID nits? (See the Internet-Drafts Checklist
and http://tools.ietf.org/tools/idnits/). Boilerplate checks are
not enough; this check needs to be thorough. Has the document
met all formal review criteria it needs to, such as the MIB
Doctor, media type and URI type reviews?
The shepherd has verified to the best of his ability that there are no
ID nits in this draft (with one exception: The document still
references RFC6282 in its Internet-Draft form -- easily fixed at the
RFC editor stage or earlier).
(1.h) Has the document split its references into normative and
informative? 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
strategy for their completion? Are there normative references
that are downward references, as described in [RFC3967]? If
so, list these downward references to support the Area
Director in the Last Call procedure for them [RFC3967].
The Document Shepherd believes all references are appropriately split.
There are no down-references.
(1.i) Has the Document Shepherd verified that the document IANA
consideration section exists and is consistent with the body
of the document? If the document specifies protocol
extensions, are reservations requested in appropriate IANA
registries? Are the IANA registries clearly identified? If
the document creates a new registry, does it define the
proposed initial contents of the registry and an allocation
procedure for future registrations? Does it suggest a
reasonable name for the new registry? See [RFC5226]. If the
document describes an Expert Review process has Shepherd
conferred with the Responsible Area Director so that the IESG
can appoint the needed Expert during the IESG Evaluation?
The IANA considerations are quite important to this document and
appear to be correct.
(1.j) Has the Document Shepherd verified that sections of the
document that are written in a formal language, such as XML
code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc., validate correctly in
an automated checker?
There are no such sections.
(1.k) 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:
This document specifies optimizations for the IPv6 Neighbor Discovery
protocol that facilitate its use in 6LoWPAN networks with sleeping
nodes, reducing the reliance on subnet-wide multicast and making the
protocol more robust to high packet loss rates. A mechanism for
Duplicate Address Detection is provided that operates in the presence
of sleeping nodes. In addition, the document extends ND to support
the dissemination of the shared context that the 6LoWPAN-HC
compression format (RFC 6282) relies on to allow compression of
arbitrary prefixes in a 6LoWPAN.
Working Group Summary
This document represents the consensus of the 6LoWPAN community to
update RFC 4944 by making the present specification an integral part
of 6LoWPAN. There has been strong consensus that the present
optimization of the IPv6 Neighbor Discovery protocol is sufficiently
important to justify this significant change.
The document is a product of the 6LoWPAN working group and has been
reviewed in detail by a significant number of 6LoWPAN working group
members. The principal content of the document has been technically
stable for about a year, during which certain fringe cases were
identified by implementers and addressed in minor updates to the
specification. The specification has been picked up widely in the
6LoWPAN community and has been subject to extensive interoperability
testing in vendor organizations such as ZigBee and IPSO.