Skip to main content

Shepherd writeup
draft-ietf-lpwan-schc-compound-ack

This is the publication request and document shepherd write up for:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-lpwan-schc-compound-ack/10/

# Document History

1) Does the working group (WG) consensus represent the strong concurrence of a
few individuals, with others being silent, or did it reach broad agreement?

There was a broad consensus in the WG about the document. All remarks and
potential issues were treated with respect, discussed openly and addressed.

2) Was there controversy about particular points, or were there decisions where
the consensus was particularly rough?

No controversies, no rough points.

4) For protocol documents, are there existing implementations of the contents of
the document? Have a significant number of potential implementers indicated
plans to implement? Are any existing implementations reported somewhere,
either in the document itself (as RFC 7942 recommends) or elsewhere
(where)?

There is an implementation of the Compound ACK as part of the The SCHC over
Sigfox Project - an open source implementation of the SCHC over Sigfox draft -
which can be found at the following addresses:
https://github.com/schc-over-sigfox https://github.com/saguilarDevel/schc-sigfox

There is an internal Acklio implementation.

# Additional Reviews

5) Do the contents of this document closely interact with technologies in other
IETF working groups or external organizations, and would it therefore benefit
from their review? Have those reviews occurred? If yes, describe which
reviews took place.

No, the Compound Ack extension of the Ack-On-Err fragmentation mode is
specifically designed and in relation to RFC8724 of the LPWAN WG.

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

The document includes a straightforward YANG model, but has not been reviewed
by a YANG doctor.

A YANG doctor review was requested and the results will be part of a next
review of the Shepherd Writeup.

7) If the document contains a YANG module, has the final version of the module
been checked with any of the recommended validation 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 RFC 8342?

The YANG model compiles correctly with no warnings.

8) Describe reviews and automated checks performed to validate sections of the
final version of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code,
BNF rules, MIB definitions, CBOR's CDDL, etc.

No such formal language verifications are necessary.

# Document Shepherd Checks

9) Based on the shepherd's review of the document, is it their opinion that this
document is needed, clearly written, complete, correctly designed, and ready
to be handed off to the responsible Area Director?

Yes, the document is clearly written and ready to be handed off.

10) Several IETF Areas have assembled lists of common issues that their
reviewers encounter. For which areas have such issues been identified
and addressed? For which does this still need to happen in subsequent
reviews?

No issues from the list are relevant to the document.

11) What type of RFC publication is being requested on the IETF stream (Best
Current Practice, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard,
Informational, Experimental or Historic)? Why is this the proper type
of RFC? Do all Datatracker state attributes correctly reflect this intent?

The document is in the Standards Track. This is the proper type, as the
document extends RFC8724, which is also Standards Track. The correct attribute
is stated on the Datatracker.

12) Have reasonable efforts been made to remind all authors of the intellectual
property rights (IPR) disclosure obligations described in BCP 79? To
the best of your knowledge, have all required disclosures been filed? If
not, explain why. If yes, summarize any relevant discussion, including links
to publicly-available messages when applicable.

All authors have replied. No IPR on this document.

13) Has each author, editor, and contributor shown their willingness to be
listed as such? If the total number of authors and editors on the front page
is greater than five, please provide a justification.

All authors have confirmed their willingness to be listed as such.
There are 6 authors, but many come from Academia, some of which more recent
authors.

14) Document any remaining I-D nits in this document. Simply running the idnits
tool is not enough; please review the "Content Guidelines" on
authors.ietf.org. (Also note that the current idnits tool generates
some incorrect warnings; a rewrite is underway.)

No nits.

15) Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the IESG
Statement on Normative and Informative References.

No, there are two sections with appropriate document referencing - Normative
and Informative.

16) List any normative references that are not freely available to anyone. Did
the community have sufficient access to review any such normative
references?

None

17) Are there any normative downward references (see RFC 3967 and BCP
97) that are not already listed in the DOWNREF registry? If so,
list them.

None

18) Are there normative references to documents that are not ready to be
submitted to the IESG for publication or are otherwise in an unclear state?
If so, what is the plan for their completion?

No such reference.

19) Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs?

No, it extends the RFC8724.

20) 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 aspects of the document requiring IANA assignments are
associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm
that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm
that each newly created IANA registry specifies its initial contents,
allocations procedures, and a reasonable name (see RFC 8126).

The document has no IANA actions.

21) List any new IANA registries that require Designated Expert Review for
future allocations. Are the instructions to the Designated Expert clear?
Please include suggestions of designated experts, if appropriate.

The document has no IANA actions.
Back