Shepherd writeup
rfc8376-10

This is the Document Write-Up for draft-ietf-lpwan-overview. To sum up: no
issues with the document, nor the process.


------------------------------------------------------------------------ 
(1) This document is submitted as an Informational RFC, as indicated on the page
header. This is the appropriate track for this document, as it presents an
overview of technologies and gap analysis to be used for informational purposes
only.

------------------------------------------------------------------------ 
(2) Document Announcement Write-Up

Technical Summary

  This document is an overview of the set of Low-Power Wide-Area Network
  technologies being considered in the IETF and of the gaps that exist between
  the needs of those technologies and the goal of running IP in LPWANs. The four
  baseline LPWAN technologies are described at a level, which allows to identify
  the necessary adaptations for each of them. The document provides overviews of
  the characteristics of the PHY and MAC layers of the various technologies, the
  deployment topologies, addressing and security features. It is not a critical
  review of the technologies and its goal is not to provide a comparison between
  them. Instead, it's purpose is to enable the understanding of the features of
  the "IP over LPWAN" design space. The document also provides a guide on the
  terminologies used across the various baseline technologies .

Working Group Summary

  The document is the combined effort of representatives of the four baseline
  LPWAN technologies, each authoring the part corresponding to their technology.
  Significant parts of the gap analysis have been contributed by other WG
  participants. With 12 contributing authors, the document is the fruit of a
  constructive work of many different organizations and individuals.

Document Quality

  The document provides an informational overview of technologies, which were
  defined outside the IETF. Each of the baseline technology providers
  (alliances, standardization bodies, companies) have designated corresponding
  authors for the relative sections. The gap analysis and the other common
  sections were widely reviewed and discussed by the many authors of the
  document (12) and the WG as whole. The document is of excellent quality. The
  LPWAN technologies evolve rapidly, and the document provides a view that is
  frozen at the time of the writing.


Personnel

  The document was reviewed for the IESG by  the shepherd Alexander Pelov (WG
  Chair). Responsible Area Director is Suresh Krishnan. This review comes in
  addition of the multiple reviews of the various sections provided (and
  validated internally) by the different technology providers.

------------------------------------------------------------------------ 
(3) The review performed by the Document Shepherd is based on following the entire
life-cycle of the document plus a final, complete review. The initial goals,
together with the individual drafts, and the multiple discussions in the mailing
list and during the WG meetings helped the Document Shepherd to follow the
process. The final review ensured that the quality of the document and the level
of integration corresponds to the process that lead to it.

------------------------------------------------------------------------ 
(4) No concerns on the review of the document.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
(5) No particular or broader perspective review is necessary.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
(6) The Document Shepherd has no specific concerns with the document.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
(7) All authors have confirmed that there are no IPR relative to this document. The
confirmations are public on the mailing list.

------------------------------------------------------------------------ 
(8) No IPR disclosures are referencing this document.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
(9) The document has a wide WG consensus behind it. It was confirmed on several WG
meetings and on the mailing list. The WG as a whole understands and agrees with
it.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
(10) No appeal or extreme discontent were every expressed regarding this document.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
(11) The document follows the Internet-Drafts Checklist. Nits on references (RFC2460-
obsolete reference - use 8200 instead; lacking FANTPS ref) can be solved during
the review or the edition process.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
(12) The document does not require a formal review.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
(13) All references in the document are identified as informative.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
(14) There are no normative references to documents that are not ready for
advancement. There are no normative references.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
(15) There are no downward normative references.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
(16) The publication of this document will not change the status of any existing RFC.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
(17) There are no IANA considerations, which is consistent with the document.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
(18) There are no new IANA registries.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
(19) This document does not use any definitions expressed in formal language (BNF
rules, MIB definitions, etc.) and as such, no automated checks were performed.
Back