(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? Proposed
Standard. This matches the title page header (from -v10 onward). This RFC
specifies a profile for using SCHC (RFC8724) over the LoRaWAN networks: it
picks some options and defines some parameters left open in the generic SCHC
specification.
(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:
RFC8724 has specified a generic framework for Static Context Header Compression
and fragmentation (SCHC), designed with Low Power Wide Area Networks (LPWAN) in
mind. LoRaWAN(R) is one such LPWAN technology. This document describes
parameters and modes of operation for efficiently using RFC8724 over the
LoraWAN networks.
Working Group Summary:
There was no particular controversy or rough consensus to be noted.
The authors are affiliated with two companies that have a strong involvement
both in the IETF LPWAN WG and in the LoRa Alliance. Feedback and design
considerations were received from other companies primarily involved in the
LoRa Alliance. Information has been delivered both ways between the two SDOs,
so we beleive the interests of the LoRa Alliance are well addressed by this
document. There were technical discussions and design iterations regarding
features allowing RFC8724 to efficiently operate over quasi-bidirectional
links, which were constructive and professional.
Document Quality:
Implementations are under way at the companies the authors are affiliated with,
and others. There were thorough reviews of the document done by companies that
are prominent members of the LoRa Alliance. This lead to slight adjustements to
the protocol to operate efficiently over the quais-bidirectional links of
LoRaWAN Class A devices, as mentioned above. Several WG interim meetings and
even a few dedicated telecoference were devoted to discussing this adjustments.
There were several thorough reviews done by the document shepherd, who happens
to be a co-author of RFC8724. This lead to the full exploitation of the
potential of RFC8724, and even to some litlle changes to RFC8724 itself during
its last design stages. No MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, Media Type or other expert
review was done nor needed.
Personnel:
The Sepherd is Dominique Barthel.
The Responsible Area Director is Eric Vincke.
(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. As
a co-author of RFC8724, the Shepherd has constantly monitored and commented on
this document, which is the first to specify a profile for RFC8724, from its
inception. In addition, the Shepherd specifically performed a thorough review
of draft-ietf-lpwan-schc-over-lorawan-00 (may 2019) and -05 (dec 2019), as well
as of all diffs between successive versions of this documents, checking for
compliance with RFC8724, completeness and adequation to LoRaWAN.
(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of
the reviews that have been performed? No concern. This document was reviewed by
the individuals most intimately familiar with RFC8724 or with LoRaWAN.
(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. No such
review neded.
(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 specific
concern or issue.
(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? Yes, each author has confirmed.
(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If so,
summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures. There
has been one IPR disclosed regarding this draft. The disclosure happened before
the end of the WGLC. It has not generated any publicly visible discussion.
(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? This document is the product of the
work by a part of the LPWAN WG (the part that has an interest in using SCHC
over LoRaWAN), but it has been followed and understood by other parts of the
WG, which have interest in using SCHC over different but similar technologies,
such as Sigfox.
(10) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent?
No threat of appeal or other extreme discontent
(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 thorough. The ID nit
tool run on Aug 1st 2020 on draft version -08 shows 4 ASCII art drawing with
lines too long, mostly by just a few characters. The ID nit tool output does
not show the severity of this issue, i.e., if this is considered an Error, a
Flaw, a Warning or a Comments. The shepherd therefore proceeds with the
submission, while requesting the authors to rework the offending ASCII art.
(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such
as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews. None of
content in this document.
(13) Have all references within this document been identified as either
normative or informative? Yes
(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? All normative references are to
published RFCs
(15) Are there downward normative references (see RFC 3967)? If so, list these
downward references to support the Area Director in the Last Call procedure. No
downward normative reference.
(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. This document does not change the status of any existing RFC.
(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). This document makes no requirement to IANA.
(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. This document makes no
requirement to IANA.
(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, etc. No formal language section
in this document.
(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? No YANG module in this document.