Shepherd writeup

As required by RFC 4858, this is based on the current template for the
 Document Shepherd Write-Up dated 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?

   => All is correct. We are going after a Proposed Standard. 
   This document specifies the behaviour of a SCHC encoder/decoder for CoAP.
   The tracker indicates Proposed Standard and the draft Standards Track
(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 draft defines the way SCHC header compression can be applied to
  CoAP headers.  The CoAP header structure differs from IPv6 and UDP
  protocols since CoAP uses a flexible header with a variable number of
  options, themselves of variable length.  The CoAP protocol is
  asymmetric in its message format: the format of the packet header in
  the request messages is different from that in the response messages.

Working Group Summary

  The draft does not introduce new methods as the original SCHC does.
  This made the work much easier for the WG. On the other hand, the
  draft specifies how the existing SCHC mechanisms are to be used
  for a number of usual fields. The limit of the work is that the
  group could not try every possible CoAP variations and there may
  be cases where SCHC as it stands today is suboptimal. The group
  decided to ship as is, and possibly publish a refresher when more
  experience is gained.

Document Quality

  This draft is implemented by at least one vendor, Acklio.
  There is also an openSCHC implementation in python.


  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 shepherd considered the readability of the content and its
   form (e.g., NITs). The recommendations were applied in two 
   rounds, v10 and v11.

(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or
breadth of the reviews that have been performed?

   The shepherd performed his review after the WGLC and found no issue.
   The document does not introduce new techniques, and is rather an
   howto type of document. It is very detailed and covers OSCORE is
   depth with multiple examples. Some corrections where asked like
   expand on first use for OSCORE terms, and cleanup of references.
   But all in all the document is in a great state and appears fit for
   publication request.

(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.

   Not so. the document mostly needs exposure to the real world, and
   feedback from implementer's who suffered in certain situations, or
   failed to obtain an optimal compression with the tools at hand.
   The group accepted to deliver a solution that might not cover the
   extremely large set of possibilities, and preferred to ship a v2 in
   some future with extended capabilities than waiting forever to ship

(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 such thing

(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.

   => All authors confirmed that there is no IPR.

(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document?
If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR

   => No such thing

(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?

   => The group understands it. SCHC is the core deliverable of LPWAN.

(10) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme
discontent? If so, please summarize 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 thing

(11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this
document. (See and the Internet-Drafts
Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be

   => The nits and shepherd review items were cleaned up between
   v09 and v11. There are still alerts like on BCP14 but that's false

(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review
criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.

   =>  No such need

(13) Have all references within this document been identified as
either normative or informative?

   => Yes. Interestingly there's no informative. The shepherd scrutinized that
   and found that all references actually qualify as normative.

(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 main SCHC draft (draft-ietf-lpwan-ipv6-static-context-hc) is the
   only reference that is not RFC yet,but is more advanced than this.
   It could be nice to ship both documents with consecutive numbers
   and I'd suggest that the RFC editor reserves the number right after
   SCHC for this document.

(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.

   =>  No such thing. There is no informative reference at all.

(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 such thing.

(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).

   => No such thing.

(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.

   => No such thing.

(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.

   => No such thing.