Shepherd writeup
rfc9006-13

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 1 November 2019.

(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? 
Informational

(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 document provides guidance on how to implement and use the
   Transmission Control Protocol (TCP) in Constrained-Node Networks
   (CNNs, defined in RFC7228), which are a characterstic of the Internet of Things (IoT).
   Such environments require a lightweight TCP implementation and may
   not make use of optional functionality.  This document explains a
   number of known and deployed techniques to simplify a TCP stack as
   well as corresponding tradeoffs.  The objective is to help embedded
   developers with decisions on which TCP features to use.


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. 

Working Group Summary:  NONE. 

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? 

Document Quality:  
   This document is not a protocol specification, and it intends to  provide guidance on how to implement and configure TCP stack, as well as on how TCP is advisable to be used by applications. This document has been reviewed thoroughly by the experts in both LWIG and TCPM working groups during the WGLC.  Markku Kojo, a long-time IETF transport expert, has provided a thorough review.  Many other provided comments which has been reflected in the current version of this draft.  
   
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, YANG 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? 

Personnel:

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

Zhen Cao is the Shepherd,  and Erik Kline is the Responsible AD. 

(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 draft is very useful for many developers using or considering of using TCP in IoT scenarios.  It explains a number of techniques including Maximum Segment Size (MSS), Delayed ACK and RTO calculation for single-MSS stacks, and provides some general and important recommendations for using TCP in CNNs.  It also summarizes features of some popular light-weight TCP/IP implementations.  All of these are quite useful to developers in this area, and I believe many pitfalls can be avoided by following the advice in this document. 

For the very infrequent request-response application flows, if the developers do not know the This document explains a number of TCP features in terms of their impacts to the very simply 

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

No, given many known experts have provided reviews and comments. 

(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. 

None. 

(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. 

None 

(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, all authors have confirmed by replying the poll email on the LWIG WG public mailing list. 

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

No. 

(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 holds a strong consensus with the group. 

(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.) 

No.

(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. 

No essential issues found. 

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

N/A

(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? 
NONE. 

(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. 

NONE. 

(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. 

(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). 

There is no IANA requests in this document. 

(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. 

N/A

(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.

N/A

(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?

N/A
Back