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 1 November 2019.
(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
Informational. It is indicated in the title page header.
(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:
The document introduces different use cases of interest for
IPv6-based vehicular networking for Intelligent Transportation
Systems (ITS). Then, it describes an example vehicular network
architecture supporting V2V, V2I, and V2X communications as a
baseline for further discussion about current IPv6 protocols with
respect to IPv6 neighbor discovery, mobility management, security,
and privacy. Finally, some requirements for future work are offered.
Working Group Summary:
Initially, the IPWAVE WG was chartered to work on documents:
one informational document explaining the state of the art in the
field and describe the use cases for IPv6, and another
informational document describing the problem statement, including
associated security and privacy considerations. The charter
indicated that the working group would decide at a future point
whether these informational documents needed to be published
separately as RFCs or if they could be combined. It was decided at
the beginning of the process to combine them, without any
The document has required a lot of time to progress, due to the low
energy level of the IPWAVE WG.
The document is informational, and therefore does not include any
protocol specification, so no implementations exist. The document
went through many iterations, as it originally had an academic
flavor, and did not properly serve its purpose of identifying key
gaps that require protocol development. This has been improved in
the last revisions. Overall, the document has a good quality.
The document has been reviewed in several occasions (more than 10) by
several IPWAVE WG participants and external reviewers recruited by
the WG chairs and the document editor. None of the reviewers has
expressed concerns with latest version of the Internet-Draft.
Carlos J. Bernardos is the Document Shepherd.
Erik Kline 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
The Document Shepherd has reviewed this document in multiple occasions,
even before it was adopted by the IPWAVE WG. During the process,
different recommendations were provided, especially aimed at making the
document more concise and less "academic". After this long process,
the document is now ready to be forwarded to the IESG.
(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 took
No, not really. As part of the publication process, I understand that
a SecDir review will take place, which might be further improve the
security-related content of the 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
No critical concerns. I feel that with more energy at the IPWAVE WG,
we could have come up with a baseline document to take on further work.
(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
No IPR has been filed.
(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?
(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
idnits reflects just one comment, regarding an unexpected draft version,
which is actually correct in the document.
(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria,
such as the MIB Doctor, YANG 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?
The document has no normative references.
(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 8126).
The document does not require any IANA action, and this is reflected
in the IANA considerations section.
(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, YANG modules,
(20) If the document contains a YANG module, has the module been checked
with any of the recommended validation tools
(https://trac.ietf.org/trac/ops/wiki/yang-review-tools) for syntax and
formatting validation? If there are any resulting errors or warnings,
what is the justification for not fixing them at this time? Does the
YANG module comply with the Network Management Datastore Architecture
(NMDA) as specified in RFC8342?