draft-ietf-roll-aodv-rpl - Write Up
Previous state: WG Document
Current state: Last Call Finished on 04-19
* Responsible Area Director: Alvaro Retana
* Document Shepherd: Ines Robles email@example.com
This document specifies a reactive P2P route discovery mechanism for both hop-by-hop routing and source routing: Ad Hoc On-demand Distance Vector Routing (AODV) based RPL protocol. Paired Instances are used to construct directional paths, in case some of the links between source and target node are asymmetric.
The Intended RFC status is Standards Track.
2. Review and Consensus
During the last call there were comments that were addressed in version 06.
This document was reviewed in roll working group.
3. Intellectual Property
Email sent to the Authors asking confirmation: All authors confirmed.
4. Other points
Checklist for draft 06
Does the shepherd stand behind the document and think the document is ready for
Is the correct RFC type indicated in the title page header? Yes.
Is the abstract both brief and sufficient, and does it stand alone as a brief summary?
Is the intent of the document accurately and adequately explained in the introduction?
Have all required formal reviews (MIB Doctor, Media Type, URI, etc.) been requested
and/or completed? Not apply.
Has the shepherd performed automated checks -- idnits (see
http://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts Checklist), checks of BNF rules,
XML code and schemas, MIB definitions, and so on -- and determined that the
document passes the tests? (In general, nits should be fixed before the document is
sent to the IESG. If there are reasons that some remain (false positives, perhaps, or
abnormal things that are necessary for this particular document), explain them.)
(See RFCs 3967 and 4897 for information about using normative references
to lower-maturity documents in RFCs)
** Downref: Normative reference to an Experimental RFC: RFC 3561
** Downref: Normative reference to an Experimental RFC: RFC 6998
Summary: 2 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 0 warnings (==), 1 comment (--).
Has each author stated that their direct, personal knowledge of any IPR related to this
document has already been disclosed, in conformance with BCPs 78 and 79?
Have all references within this document been identified as either normative or
informative, and does the shepherd agree with how they have been classified?
Are all normative references made to documents that are ready for advancement and
are otherwise in a clear state?
If publication of this document changes the status of any existing RFCs, are those
RFCs listed on the title page header, and are the changes listed in the abstract and
discussed (explained, not just mentioned) in the introduction? Not apply.
If this is a "bis" document, have all of the errata been considered? Not apply.
Are the IANA Considerations clear and complete? Yes.
Are all protocol extensions that the document makes associated with the appropriate
reservations in IANA registries? Yes.
Are all IANA registries referred to by their exact names (check them in
http://www.iana.org/protocols/ to be sure)? Yes.
For any new registries that this document creates, has the working group actively
chosen the allocation procedures and policies and discussed the alternatives? Not apply.
Have reasonable registry names been chosen (that will not be confused with those of
other registries),? and have the initial contents and valid value ranges been clearly specified? Yes.
Issues raised by document shepherd were fixed in version 07
Thank you for this document,