Skip to main content

Shepherd writeup

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 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?

<response to (1)>
i) Type of RFC Requested: Informational
ii) It is the proper type of RFC because the document is a memorandum
discussing techniques for minimizing power consumption in devices using CoAP in
cellular networks. iii) The type of RFC is indicated in the title page header
</response to (1)>

(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:

Relevant content can frequently be found in the abstract and/or introduction of
the document. If not, this may be an indication that there are deficiencies in
the abstract or introduction.

<response to (2) Technical Summary>
The document discusses the use of the Constrained Application Protocol (CoAP)
protocol in devices that employ cellular networks as a communications medium,
with a specific focus on techniques necessary to minimize power consumption.
</response to (2) Technical Summary>

Working Group Summary:

Was there anything in WG process that is worth noting? For example, was there
controversy about particular points or were there decisions where the consensus
was particularly rough?

<response to (2) Working Group Summary>
Nothing of significance.
</response to (2) Working Group Summary>

Document Quality:

Are there existing implementations of the protocol? Have a significant number
of vendors indicated their plan to implement the specification? Are there any
reviewers that merit special mention as having done a thorough review, e.g.,
one that resulted in important changes or a conclusion that the document had no
substantive issues? If there was a MIB Doctor, Media Type or other expert
review, what was its course (briefly)? In the case of a Media Type review, on
what date was the request posted?

<response to (2) Document Quality>
The document does not specify a protocol therefore the question regarding
protocol implementation does not apply. There as an implication that there has
been some implementation experience leading to the guidelines in the document
but it is not explicitly stated thus. </response to (2) Document Quality>


Who is the Document Shepherd? Who is the Responsible Area Director?

<response to (2) Personnel>
The Document Shepherd is Robert Cragie. The Responsible Area Director is Brian
Haberman. </response to (2) Personnel>

(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.

<response to (3)>
The Document Shepherd has thoroughly reviewed through the document and
considers it ready for publication. </response to (3)>

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

<response to (4)>
The document has been submitted for review on the lwig WG mailing lists and has
had a small amount of discussion. Feedback comments have been incorporated.
</response to (4)>

(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.

<response to (5)>
The Document Shepherd does not consider that the document requires review from
a broader perspective. </response to (5)>

(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.

<response to (6)>
The Document Shepherd has no specific concerns or issues with the document.
</response to (6)>

(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?

<response to (7)>
The authors have confirmed that there are no IPR disclosures required for full
conformance with BCP 78 and BCP 79. </response to (7)>

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

<response to (8)>
There are no IPR disclosures that reference the document.
</response to (8)>

(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?

<response to (9)>
It has been discussed in recent meetings and on the mailing list therefore the
conclusion is that the WG as a while understands and agrees with the document.
</response to (9)>

(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.)

<response to (10)>
</response to (10)>

(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 thorough.

<response to (11)>
There are no error and no warnings from a verbose nits check of draft-04. There
is one obsolete reference (RFC 4627 (Obsoleted by RFC 7159)). </response to

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

<response to (12)>
No formal review required.
</response to (12)>

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

<response to (13)>
</response to (13)>

(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?

<response to (14)>
All normative references are in a clear state.
</response to (14)>

(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

<response to (15)>
</response to (15)>

(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.

<response to (16)>
The publication of this document will not affect the status of any existing
RFCs. </response to (16)>

(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 5226).

<response to (17)>
There are no IANA considerations.
</response to (17)>

(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.

<response to (18)>
</response to (18)>

(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.

<response to (19)>
There are no parts of the document written in a formal language.
</response to (19)>