Root-initiated Routing State in RPL
draft-ietf-roll-dao-projection-40

[Ballot comment]
The WG state includes the flag "Doc Shepherd Follow-up Underway".  Anything we should know about?

Section 6.7 (mainly, but it's also true in a few other places) have SHOULD [NOT]s that would benefit from some explanation of when one might legitimately not do what it advises.  Or, if there's no reason for choice, maybe they should be MUST [NOT]s?  Or if there's broad discretion, maybe MAY [NOT]s?

[Ballot comment]
Thank you for writing this, and also thanks to Ran Chen for the OpsDir review -- https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/review-ietf-roll-dao-projection-39-opsdir-telechat-chen-2025-03-05/

This has some useful nits, and I'd recommend addressing these.

[Ballot comment]
Thanks for working on this specification. Thanks to Michael Scharf for his TSVART review, based on that and my read I have no objection.

[Ballot comment]
** Section 11.1
  IANA is requested to add [THIS RFC] as a reference for MOP 7 in the
  RPL Mode of Operation registry

Technically the name of the registry is “Model of Operation” registry, without the “RPL”.

** Section 11.12
| 0 (Suggested) | "S" flag: Sibling in  | THIS RFC  |
          |              | same DODAG as Self    |          |

Why is 0 being "suggested" if this section is creating the registry?

[Ballot discuss]
# Gunter Van de Velde, RTG AD, comments for draft-ietf-roll-dao-projection-38

# The line numbers used are rendered from IETF idnits tool: https://author-tools.ietf.org/api/idnits?url=https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-roll-dao-projection-38.txt

# for your convenience, please find some non-blocking COMMENTS and one blocking DISCUSS handling about the intended status (I would like to consider this document to be Experimental instead of Proposed Standard).

# this document is complex and i got lost in the acronyms and can only hope it works when implemented. Hence i have a concern about the intended status as proposed Standard.

# DISCUSS
# =======

# The document is currently aiming for Proposed Standard status, but given its complexity and the lack of working implementations, I’m wondering if that’s the best approach. There also doesn’t seem to be much interest in developing an implementation at this stage. Wouldn’t an Experimental status be more appropriate for now? This would allow for further exploration and refinement, and if a working implementation emerges in the future, transitioning to a Proposed Standard would provide a stronger foundation. I’d love to understand the reasoning behind the current choice. I did read the shepherd writeup, but am not convinced with the justification.

[Ballot comment]
# comments
# ========

17   A Projected Route is one that is computed by a central entity, such
18   as a Path Computation Engine (PCE) and installed in the routers that
19   instantiate it, using the procedures defined here.

GV> would it be possible to be accurate specify what the 'it' is referencing towards?

GV> Maybe an alternative abstract proposal could be based upon the following proposal:

"
The Routing Protocol for Low-Power and Lossy Networks (RPL) enables data packet routing along a Destination-Oriented Directed Acyclic Graph (DODAG). However, the default route establishment mechanism relies on hop-by-hop forwarding along the DODAG, which may not always provide optimal routing efficiency. This document introduces the concept of DAO Projection, a mechanism that allows a RPL root or an external controller to install optimized routes within the network. DAO Projections enable the creation of optimized unicast or multicast routes that do not strictly follow the DODAG structure, thereby improving routing efficiency, load balancing, and resource utilization in constrained networks. The document specifies two types of projected routes—storing mode and non-storing mode projections—and outlines the signaling procedures necessary to establish, maintain, and remove these routes. Additionally, it addresses security considerations and compatibility aspects to ensure robust deployment in RPL-based networks.
"

151   RPL, the "Routing Protocol for Low Power and Lossy Networks" [RPL]
152   (LLNs), is an anisotropic Distance Vector protocol that is well-
153   suited for application in a variety of low energy Internet of Things
154   (IoT) networks where stretched P2P paths are acceptable vs. the
155   signaling and state overhead involved in maintaining the shortest
156   paths across.

GV> Maybe the terminology used as anisotropic has familiarity in the ROLL WG, but it was a new term to me. I  had to look it up. Would it make sense to inform what it exactly is> or add a reference? I found te following explanation snip

"
An Anisotropic Distance Vector refers to a type of routing metric used in distance vector routing protocols where the path cost (or distance) between nodes is direction-dependent. This means that the cost of traveling from node A to node B may not be the same as the cost of traveling from node B to node A. This is in contrast to isotropic distance vectors, where the path cost is symmetric.
"

171   compute Peer-to-Peer (P2P) paths within the main Instance.  In Non-

GV> usually when i see p2p i make a mental connection to point-to-point, which is visualized as a link between two nodes. In this technology this is a peer-to-peer, which i could be across many nodes in the middle. Is there no other naming that could be provided as using p2p for both seems rather confusing

183   path redundancy.  This specification also introduces protocol
184   extensions that enable the Root to translate the computed paths into
185   RPL and install them as Projected Routes (a.k.a. P-Routes) inside the
186   DODAG on behalf of a PCE.

GV> What does  "translate the computed paths into RPL" exactly mean? RPL stands for "Routing Protocol for Low Power and Lossy Networks". Does the statement means that the computed paths are translated into encodings associated with RPL? are these of a specific type? How would these be different from other route encodings?

1367   As an example, say that A has a packet for F.  Using the RIB above:

GV> maybe refer accurately to Table 12 as the intended RIB?

Gunter Van de Velde
RTG Area Director

[Ballot comment]
Thanks for addressing my previous block DISCUSS points and changing the text to also address the other non-blocking COMMENT points.

See https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/roll/j7XHxmR5TZfiXAMsZtLiJks7lIU/ for the archived version.

[Ballot discuss]

# Éric Vyncke, INT AD, comments for draft-ietf-roll-dao-projection-37
CC @evyncke

Thank you for the work put into this document. The problem space seems complex, therefore this document is also complex (and not too easy to read for a newcomer even with the examples -- thanks for them), let's hope that the specification actually works and can be deployed.

Please find below some blocking DISCUSS points (easy to address with some clarification texts), some non-blocking COMMENT points (but replies would be appreciated even if only for my own education), and some nits.

Special thanks to Ines Robles for the shepherd's detailed write-up including the WG consensus and some justification of the intended status.

I hope that this review helps to improve the document,

Regards,

-éric


## DISCUSS (blocking)

As noted in https://www.ietf.org/blog/handling-iesg-ballot-positions/, a DISCUSS ballot is just a request to have a discussion on the following topics:

### Copyright

Please pay attention to the copyright notice authors & IETF Trust are *not* the copyright owners as section 2.4.3 (and possibly others) include text from pre-RFC, e.g., some text of RFC 1112; suggest using pre5378Trust200902 template for the copyright. Please note that I am not a lawyer.

### Section 2.4.5.7.2

While all IPv6 routing headers are quite similar, to be honest, I am lost with this section... Does it mean that SRv6 SRH (routing header type 4) can be used for "steering" packets along a RPL route rather that traditional RH type 3 ?

What are the security considerations in this case ?

`This specification applies equally to both forms of source routing and SRH.` does it imply that SRH (assuming RFC 8754) is not source routing ?

[Ballot comment]

## COMMENTS (non-blocking)

### Abstract & Title

Should DODAG be expanded ?

s/Root initiated routing state in RPL/Root-initiated routing state in RPL/ ?

### Section 2.3

Providing expansion of acronyms is welcome even if some description texts would had been more useful.

As "SRH" is often used by the IETF community for RFC 8754 "SRv6 Routing Header", suggest using simply "RH" to avoid any ambiguity. See also comment about section 2.4.5.7.2 and other places... Later in the text (section 6.7), `RPL Source Route Header` is used and does not have any ambiguity.

### Section 3.1

While I know the expression "ships in the night", suggest to follow Deb's suggestion and removing this semi-obscure expression.

### Section 3.5.1.3

May be I did not pay enough attention, but this is the first time RFC 8402 (segment routing by SPRING WG) appears... STRONGLY suggest mentioning RFC 8402 earlier in the document (introduction or even abstract).

### Section 4

`It is expected that extensions to existing specifications do not cause existing code on legacy 6LRs to malfunction` appears more like wishful thinking than engineering ;-)

Section 9 is more assertive.

### Sections 4.1, 4.2, 4.3

Please add "RPL" in addition to `RFC 6550` in the section title. Same comment for sections 4.2 & 4.3.

I am also unsure whether the update to existing RFC is crystal clear (I usually prefer the form of OLD TEXT / NEW TEXT albeit sometimes cumbersome).

### Section 11

Suggest using a normative reference to all IANA registries via their URI, e.g., https://www.iana.org/assignments/rpl/rpl.xhtml#dodag-config-option-flags

## NITS (non-blocking / cosmetic)

s/aka/a.k.a./

### Use of SVG graphics

To make a much nicer HTML rendering, suggest using the aasvg too to generate SVG graphics. It is worth a try ;-)

[Ballot comment]

Thanks to Klaas Wierenga for their secdir review.

Here are two easy comments, and one that can possibly be explained pretty easily: 

Section 3.1, para 4, 'ships passing in the night':  I can't tell if this quote from the Henry Wadsworth Longfellow poem is being used properly (two ships that greet each other with flashing lights and then sail off into the night).  In any case, I don't think it helps the non-native English speakers.  Either provide a reference to explain the quote, or remove.

Section 10:  The mitigation recommendations here (or in the references) are very general - encrypt using algorithm x with mode y, perform good key management, etc. type of advice.  I'd be curious to see how many implementations can take action on these recommendations. Note:  I have not studied all the references here in great detail.  If there is one that covers my point, then please make it more obvious.

Section 10, para 2:  I'd suggest replacing 'so as to avoid threats such as black-holing' with 'avoiding sinkhole attacks' (as is done in RFC 7416).

IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

IANA has completed its review of draft-ietf-roll-dao-projection-36. If any part of this review is inaccurate, please let us know.

IANA understands that, upon approval of this document, there are seventeen actions which we must complete.

First, in the DODAG Configuration Option Flags for MOP 0..6 registry in the Routing Protocol for Low Power and Lossy Networks (RPL) registry group located at:

https://www.iana.org/assignments/rpl/

Bit number: [ TBD-at-Registration ]
Capability Description: Projected Routes Support (D)
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

IANA notes that the authors have suggested a bit number of 0 for this new registration.

Second, in the Mode of Operation registry also in the Routing Protocol for Low Power and Lossy Networks (RPL) registry group located at:

https://www.iana.org/assignments/rpl/

the existing registration for:

Value: 7
Description: Reserved
Reference: [RFC9008][RFC9010][RFC9035]

will have [ RFC-to-be ] added as a reference.

Third, in the Elective 6LoWPAN Routing Header Type registry in the IPv6 Low Power Personal Area Network Parameters registry group located at:

https://www.iana.org/assignments/_6lowpan-parameters/

a single new registration will be made as follows:

Value: [ TBD-at-Registration ]
Description: P-RPI-6LoRH
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

IANA notes that the authors have suggested a value of 8 for this registration.

Fourth, in the Critical 6LoWPAN Routing Header Type registry also in the IPv6 Low Power Personal Area Network Parameters registry group located at:

https://www.iana.org/assignments/_6lowpan-parameters/

a single new registration will be made as follows:

Value: [ TBD-at-Registration ]
Description: P-RPI-6LoRH
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

IANA notes that the authors have suggested a value of 8 for this registration.

Fifth, a new registry is to be created called the RPL Option Flags registry. The new registry will be located in the Routing Protocol for Low Power and Lossy Networks (RPL) registry group located at:

https://www.iana.org/assignments/rpl/

The new registry will be managed via Standards Action as defined by RFC8126. There are initial registrations in the new registry as follows:

Bit Number Indication When Set Reference
-----------+--------------------+--------------
0 Down 'O' [RFC6553]
1 Rank-Error (R) [RFC6553]
2 Forwarding-Error (F) [RFC6553]
3 Projected-Route (P) [ RFC-to-be ]
4-255 Unassigned

Sixth, in the RPL Control Codes registry also in the Routing Protocol for Low Power and Lossy Networks (RPL) registry group located at:

https://www.iana.org/assignments/rpl/

two new registrations will be made as follows:

Code: [ TBD-at-Registration ]
Description: Projected DAO Request (PDR)
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

Code: [ TBD-at-Registration ]
Description: PDR-ACK
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

IANA notes that the authors have suggested 0x09 and 0x0A for these codes.

Seventh, in the RPL Control Message Options registry also in the Routing Protocol for Low Power and Lossy Networks (RPL) registry group located at:

https://www.iana.org/assignments/rpl/

three new registrations are to be made as follows:

Value: [ TBD-at-Registration ]
Meaning: Stateful VIO (SM-VIO)
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

Value: [ TBD-at-Registration ]
Meaning: Source-Routed VIO (NSM-VIO)
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

Value: [ TBD-at-Registration ]
Meaning: Sibling Information option
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

IANA notes that the authors have suggested 0x0E, 0x0F and 0x10 for these values.

Eighth, a new registry is to be created called the Projected DAO Request (PDR) registry. The new registry will also be located in the Routing Protocol for Low Power and Lossy Networks (RPL) registry group located at:

https://www.iana.org/assignments/rpl/

The new registry will be managed via Standards Action as defined by RFC8126. There are initial registrations in the new registry as follows:

Bit Number Capability description Reference
-----------+---------------------+--------------
0 PDR-ACK request (K) [ RFC-to-be ]
1 Requested path should be redundant (R) [ RFC-to-be ]
2-255 Unassigned

Ninth, a new registry is to be created called the PDR-ACK Flags registry. The new registry will also be located in the Routing Protocol for Low Power and Lossy Networks (RPL) registry group located at:

https://www.iana.org/assignments/rpl/

The new registry will be managed via Standards Action as defined by RFC8126. There are no initial registrations in the new registry. The fields in the new registry are:

Bit number (counting from bit 0 as the most significant bit)
Capability description
Reference

Tenth, a new registry is to be created called the PDR-ACK Acceptance Status Values registry. The new registry will also be located in the Routing Protocol for Low Power and Lossy Networks (RPL) registry group located at:

https://www.iana.org/assignments/rpl/

The new registry will be managed via Standards Action as defined by RFC8126. There are initial registrations in the new registry as follows:

Value Meaning Reference
-----+--------+-----------
0 Unqualified Acceptance [ RFC-to-be ]
1-63 Unassigned

Eleventh, a new registry is to be created called the PDR-ACK Rejection Status Values registry. The new registry will also be located in the Routing Protocol for Low Power and Lossy Networks (RPL) registry group located at:

https://www.iana.org/assignments/rpl/

The new registry will be managed via Standards Action as defined by RFC8126. There are initial registrations in the new registry as follows:

Value Meaning Reference
-----+--------+-----------
0 Unqualified Rejection [ RFC-to-be ]
1 Transient Failure [ RFC-to-be ]
2-63 Unassigned

Twelveth, a new registry is to be created called the Via Information Options (VIO) Flags registry. The new registry will also be located in the Routing Protocol for Low Power and Lossy Networks (RPL) registry group located at:

https://www.iana.org/assignments/rpl/

The new registry will be managed via Standards Action as defined by RFC8126. There are no initial registrations in the new registry. The fields in the new registry are:

Bit number (counting from bit 0 as the most significant bit)
Capability description
Reference

Thirteenth, a new registry is to be created called the Sibling Information Option (SIO) Flags registry. The new registry will also be located in the Routing Protocol for Low Power and Lossy Networks (RPL) registry group located at:

https://www.iana.org/assignments/rpl/

The new registry will be managed via Standards Action as defined by RFC8126. There are initial registrations in the new registry as follows:

Bit Number Capability description Reference
----------+----------------------+-----------
0 "S" flag: Sibling in same DODAG as Self [ RFC-to-be ]
1-4 Unassigned

Fourteenth, in the Destination Advertisement Object (DAO) Flags registry also in the Routing Protocol for Low Power and Lossy Networks (RPL) registry group located at:

https://www.iana.org/assignments/rpl/

a single new registration is to be made as follows:

Bit number: [ TBD-at-Registration ]
Capability Description: Projected DAO (P)
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

IANA notes that the authors suggest a bit number of 2 for this new registration.

Fifteenth, in the Destination Advertisement Object (DAO) Acknowledgment Flags registry also in the Routing Protocol for Low Power and Lossy Networks (RPL) registry group located at:

https://www.iana.org/assignments/rpl/

a single new registration is to be made as follows:

Bit number: [ TBD-at-Registration ]
Capability Description: Projected DAO-ACK (P)
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

IANA notes that the authors suggest a bit number of 1 for this new registration.

Sixteenth, in the Type 1 - Destination Unreachable sub-registry of the ICMPv6 "Code" Fields registry in the Internet Control Message Protocol version 6 (ICMPv6) Parameters registry group located at:

https://www.iana.org/assignments/icmpv6-parameters/

a single new registration is to be made as follows:

Code: [ TBD-at-Registration ]
Name: Error in P-Route
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

Seventeenth, in the RPL Rejection Status registry also in the Routing Protocol for Low Power and Lossy Networks (RPL) registry group located at:

https://www.iana.org/assignments/rpl/

four new registrations are to be made as follows:

Value: [ TBD-at-Registration ]
Meaning: Out of Resources
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

Value: [ TBD-at-Registration ]
Meaning: Error in VIO
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

Value: [ TBD-at-Registration ]
Meaning: Predecessor Unreachable
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

Value: [ TBD-at-Registration ]
Meaning: Unreachable Target
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

IANA notes that the authors have suggested values of 2, 3, 4 and 5 for these values.

We understand that these are the only actions required to be completed upon approval of this document.

NOTE: The actions requested in this document will not be completed until the document has been approved for publication as an RFC. This message is meant only to confirm the list of actions that will be performed.

For definitions of IANA review states, please see:

https://datatracker.ietf.org/help/state/draft/iana-review

Thank you,

David Dong
IANA Services Sr. Specialist

The following Last Call announcement was sent out (ends 2025-02-19):

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC: draft-ietf-roll-dao-projection@ietf.org, jgs@juniper.net, mariainesrobles@googlemail.com, roll-chairs@ietf.org, roll@ietf.org
Reply-To: last-call@ietf.org
Sender:
Subject: Last Call:  (Root initiated routing state in RPL) to Proposed Standard


The IESG has received a request from the Routing Over Low power and Lossy
networks WG (roll) to consider the following document: - 'Root initiated
routing state in RPL'
  as Proposed Standard

The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits final
comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the
last-call@ietf.org mailing lists by 2025-02-19. Exceptionally, comments may
be sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the beginning
of the Subject line to allow automated sorting.

Abstract


  This document extends RFC 6550, RFC 6553, and RFC 8138 to enable a
  RPL Root to install and maintain Projected Routes within its DODAG.
  A Projected Route is one that is computed by a central entity, such
  as a Path Computation Engine (PCE) and installed in the routers that
  instantiate it, using the procedures defined here.  The routes are
  installed along a selected set of nodes that may or may not include
  itself, for a chosen duration.  This potentially enables routes that
  are more optimized or resilient than those obtained with the
  classical distributed operation of RPL, either in terms of the size
  of a Routing Header or in terms of path length, which impacts both
  the latency and the packet delivery ratio.




The file can be obtained via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-roll-dao-projection/


The following IPR Declarations may be related to this I-D:

  https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/5761/
  https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/2620/



The document contains these normative downward references.
See RFC 3967 for additional information:
    rfc9030: An Architecture for IPv6 over the Time-Slotted Channel Hopping Mode of IEEE 802.15.4 (6TiSCH) (Informational - Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) stream)
    draft-ietf-raw-architecture: Reliable and Available Wireless Architecture (None - Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) stream)

# Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents

Document: draft-ietf-roll-dao-projection-34
Shepherd: Ines Robles
Date: 23.1.2024
AD: John Scudder

Thank you for your service as a document shepherd. Among the responsibilities is
answering the questions in this write-up to give helpful context to Last Call
and Internet Engineering Steering Group ([IESG][1]) reviewers, and your
diligence in completing it is appreciated. The full role of the shepherd is
further described in [RFC 4858][2]. You will need the cooperation of the authors
and editors to complete these checks.

Note that some numbered items contain multiple related questions; please be sure
to answer all of them.

## 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?

The WGLC last for long time, during this time we got approval from some members and also its reviews, but for the last versions including the correction of the reviews, members were silent, no rejection gotten.
Last version (34) addresses Routing Directorate Review.


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

No, concerns were discussed in interim meetings and IETF meetings, issues were addressed.

3. Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If
  so, please summarize 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

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][3] recommends) or elsewhere
  (where)?

No implementation known. Students presented interest to implement in near future.

## 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.
The document aims for RPL protocol, no immediate dependency in other WGs. Although, terminology was corrected to align with RAW working group (RAW architecture). Also, this work will be useful for 6tisch implementations.

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.

Not applicable for this document

7. If the document contains a YANG module, has the final version of the module
  been checked with any of the [recommended validation tools][4] 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][5]?
Not applicable for this document

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.
Not applicable for this document

## 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?

The document is clearly written.

Minor issues were found in the shepherd review that were addressed by the authors in version 32

10. Several IETF Areas have assembled [lists of common issues that their
    reviewers encounter][6]. For which areas have such issues been identified
    and addressed? For which does this still need to happen in subsequent
    reviews?

Issues addressed were mainly for routing area.

11. What type of RFC publication is being requested on the IETF stream ([Best
    Current Practice][12], [Proposed Standard, Internet Standard][13],
    [Informational, Experimental or Historic][14])? Why is this the proper type
    of RFC? Do all Datatracker state attributes correctly reflect this intent?

Intended Status: Standards Track
This specification introduces protocol extensions that enrich the topological information available to the Root with sibling relationships to enable a RPL Root to install and maintain Projected Routes within its DODAG for a chosen duration.

12. Have reasonable efforts been made to remind all authors of the intellectual
    property rights (IPR) disclosure obligations described in [BCP 79][7]? 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.

This document has associted two IPRs:

1. https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/2620/
2. https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/2620/

The authors confirm that there are no additional IPRs than the one mentioned above:
- Pascal Thubert provided IPR confirmation of version 30 on December 2022
- Rahul Jahav provided IPR confirmation on version 30 on December 2022
- Michael Richardson provided IPR confirmation on October 2022 of version 21

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.

Yes, the authors accepted to be listed as such.

14. Document any remaining I-D nits in this document. Simply running the [idnits
    tool][8] is not enough; please review the ["Content Guidelines" on
    authors.ietf.org][15]. (Also note that the current idnits tool generates
    some incorrect warnings; a rewrite is underway.)

From idnits check: https://author-tools.ietf.org/api/idnits?url=https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-roll-dao-projection-32.txt

Result:    (See RFCs 3967 and 4897 for information about using normative references
    to lower-maturity documents in RFCs)

  == Missing Reference: 'THIS RFC' is mentioned on line 3393, but not defined

  ** Downref: Normative reference to an Informational RFC: RFC 9030

  == Outdated reference: A later version (-14) exists of
    draft-ietf-raw-architecture-11

  ** Downref: Normative reference to an Informational draft:
    draft-ietf-raw-architecture (ref. 'RAW-ARCHI')

  -- No information found for draft-irtf-panrg-path-properties - is the name
    correct?

Summary: 2 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 7 warnings (==), 5 comments (--).

15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the [IESG
    Statement on Normative and Informative References][16].
From AD comment:
RFC4655, as used, can be an Informational reference.
RFC9030 has been used before as a downref, so there won’t be an issue using it as Normative.
For raw-architecture draft, it is understood that as used can be an Information Reference

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

The normative references comprise IETF documents.

17. Are there any normative downward references (see [RFC 3967][9] and [BCP
    97][10]) that are not already listed in the [DOWNREF registry][17]? If so,
    list them.
No

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?

draft-ietf-raw-architecture-11: work in progress. From RAW Charter it was aimed to be finished on May 2022

19. Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? If
    so, does the Datatracker metadata correctly reflect this and are those RFCs
    listed on the title page, in the abstract, and discussed in the
    introduction? If not, explain why and point to the part of the document
    where the relationship of this document to these other RFCs is discussed.

The status of other RFCs are not changed. However, this document updates RFC 6550, RFC 6553, and RFC 8138. The explanation of these updates are included in the document in Section 4.

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][11]).


IANA Requests are made correctly, just some nits mentioned below.

This document includes 16 IANA Considerations requests:
1. RPL DODAG Configuration Option Flag
2. Elective 6LoWPAN Routing Header Type: nits addressed in the github file
3. Critical 6LoWPAN Routing Header Type: nits addressed in the github file
4. Registry For The RPL Option Flags
5. RPL Control Codes
6. RPL Control Message Options
7. SubRegistry for the Projected DAO Request Flags
8. SubRegistry for the PDR-ACK Flags
9. Registry for the PDR-ACK Acceptance Status Values
10. Registry for the PDR-ACK Rejection Status Values
11. SubRegistry for the Via Information Options Flags
12. SubRegistry for the Sibling Information Option Flags
13. Destination Advertisement Object Flag
14. Destination Advertisement Object Acknowledgment Flag
15. New ICMPv6 Error Code: nits addressed in the github file
16. RPL Rejection Status values.: nits addressed in the github file

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.

[1]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/
[2]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4858.html
[3]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7942.html
[4]: https://trac.ietf.org/trac/ops/wiki/yang-review-tools
[5]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8342.html
[6]: https://trac.ietf.org/trac/iesg/wiki/ExpertTopics
[7]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp79
[8]: https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/
[9]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3967.html
[10]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp97
[11]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8126.html
[12]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-5
[13]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.1
[14]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.2
[15]: https://authors.ietf.org/en/content-guidelines-overview
[16]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/normative-informative-references/
[17]: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/downref/

Not applicable

Note: The routing directorate review is in progress, unfortunately it has taken very long, it is expected that it will be be submitted soon [https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-roll-dao-projection/reviewrequest/16930/].

# Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents

Document: draft-ietf-roll-dao-projection-32
Shepherd: Ines Robles
Date: 15.12.2023
AD: John Scudder

Thank you for your service as a document shepherd. Among the responsibilities is
answering the questions in this write-up to give helpful context to Last Call
and Internet Engineering Steering Group ([IESG][1]) reviewers, and your
diligence in completing it is appreciated. The full role of the shepherd is
further described in [RFC 4858][2]. You will need the cooperation of the authors
and editors to complete these checks.

Note that some numbered items contain multiple related questions; please be sure
to answer all of them.

## 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?

The WGLC last for long time, during this time we got approval from some members and also its reviews, but for the last versions including the correction of the reviews, members were silent, no rejection gotten.
Last version addresses Routing Directorate Review, current discussions on going


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

No, concerns were discussed in interim meetings and IETF meetings, issues were addressed.

3. Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If
  so, please summarize 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

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][3] recommends) or elsewhere
  (where)?

No implementation known. Students presented interest to implement in near future.

## 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.
The document aims for RPL protocol, no immediate dependency in other WGs. Although, terminology was corrected to align with RAW working group (RAW architecture). Also, this work will be useful for 6tisch implementations.

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.

Not applicable for this document

7. If the document contains a YANG module, has the final version of the module
  been checked with any of the [recommended validation tools][4] 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][5]?
Not applicable for this document

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.
Not applicable for this document

## 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?

The document is clearly written.

Minor issues were found in the shepherd review that were addressed by the authors in version 32

10. Several IETF Areas have assembled [lists of common issues that their
    reviewers encounter][6]. For which areas have such issues been identified
    and addressed? For which does this still need to happen in subsequent
    reviews?

Issues addressed were mainly for routing area.

11. What type of RFC publication is being requested on the IETF stream ([Best
    Current Practice][12], [Proposed Standard, Internet Standard][13],
    [Informational, Experimental or Historic][14])? Why is this the proper type
    of RFC? Do all Datatracker state attributes correctly reflect this intent?

Intended Status: Standards Track
This specification introduces protocol extensions that enrich the topological information available to the Root with sibling relationships to enable a RPL Root to install and maintain Projected Routes within its DODAG for a chosen duration.

12. Have reasonable efforts been made to remind all authors of the intellectual
    property rights (IPR) disclosure obligations described in [BCP 79][7]? 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.

This document has associted two IPRs:

1. https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/2620/
2. https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/2620/

The authors confirm that there are no additional IPRs than the one mentioned above:
- Pascal Thubert provided IPR confirmation of version 30 on December 2022
- Rahul Jahav provided IPR confirmation on version 30 on December 2022
- Michael Richardson provided IPR confirmation on October 2022 of version 21

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.

Yes, the authors accepted to be listed as such.

14. Document any remaining I-D nits in this document. Simply running the [idnits
    tool][8] is not enough; please review the ["Content Guidelines" on
    authors.ietf.org][15]. (Also note that the current idnits tool generates
    some incorrect warnings; a rewrite is underway.)

From idnits check: https://author-tools.ietf.org/api/idnits?url=https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-roll-dao-projection-32.txt

Result:    (See RFCs 3967 and 4897 for information about using normative references
    to lower-maturity documents in RFCs)

  == Missing Reference: 'THIS RFC' is mentioned on line 3393, but not defined

  ** Downref: Normative reference to an Informational RFC: RFC 9030

  == Outdated reference: A later version (-14) exists of
    draft-ietf-raw-architecture-11

  ** Downref: Normative reference to an Informational draft:
    draft-ietf-raw-architecture (ref. 'RAW-ARCHI')

  -- No information found for draft-irtf-panrg-path-properties - is the name
    correct?

Summary: 2 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 7 warnings (==), 5 comments (--).

15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the [IESG
    Statement on Normative and Informative References][16].
From AD comment:
RFC4655, as used, can be an Informational reference.
RFC9030 has been used before as a downref, so there won’t be an issue using it as Normative.
For raw-architecture draft, it is understood that as used can be an Information Reference

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

The normative references comprise IETF documents.

17. Are there any normative downward references (see [RFC 3967][9] and [BCP
    97][10]) that are not already listed in the [DOWNREF registry][17]? If so,
    list them.
No

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?

draft-ietf-raw-architecture-11: work in progress. From RAW Charter it was aimed to be finished on May 2022

19. Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? If
    so, does the Datatracker metadata correctly reflect this and are those RFCs
    listed on the title page, in the abstract, and discussed in the
    introduction? If not, explain why and point to the part of the document
    where the relationship of this document to these other RFCs is discussed.

The status of other RFCs are not changed. However, this document updates RFC 6550, RFC 6553, and RFC 8138. The explanation of these updates are included in the document in Section 4.

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][11]).


IANA Requests are made correctly, just some nits mentioned below.

This document includes 16 IANA Considerations requests:
1. RPL DODAG Configuration Option Flag
2. Elective 6LoWPAN Routing Header Type: nits addressed in the github file
3. Critical 6LoWPAN Routing Header Type: nits addressed in the github file
4. Registry For The RPL Option Flags
5. RPL Control Codes
6. RPL Control Message Options
7. SubRegistry for the Projected DAO Request Flags
8. SubRegistry for the PDR-ACK Flags
9. Registry for the PDR-ACK Acceptance Status Values
10. Registry for the PDR-ACK Rejection Status Values
11. SubRegistry for the Via Information Options Flags
12. SubRegistry for the Sibling Information Option Flags
13. Destination Advertisement Object Flag
14. Destination Advertisement Object Acknowledgment Flag
15. New ICMPv6 Error Code: nits addressed in the github file
16. RPL Rejection Status values.: nits addressed in the github file

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.

[1]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/
[2]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4858.html
[3]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7942.html
[4]: https://trac.ietf.org/trac/ops/wiki/yang-review-tools
[5]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8342.html
[6]: https://trac.ietf.org/trac/iesg/wiki/ExpertTopics
[7]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp79
[8]: https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/
[9]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3967.html
[10]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp97
[11]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8126.html
[12]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-5
[13]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.1
[14]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.2
[15]: https://authors.ietf.org/en/content-guidelines-overview
[16]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/normative-informative-references/
[17]: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/downref/

Not applicable

Note: The routing directorate review is in progress, unfortunately it has taken very long, it is expected that it will be be submitted soon [https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-roll-dao-projection/reviewrequest/16930/].

# Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents

Document: draft-ietf-roll-dao-projection-32
Shepherd: Ines Robles
Date: 28.06.2023
AD: John Scudder

Thank you for your service as a document shepherd. Among the responsibilities is
answering the questions in this write-up to give helpful context to Last Call
and Internet Engineering Steering Group ([IESG][1]) reviewers, and your
diligence in completing it is appreciated. The full role of the shepherd is
further described in [RFC 4858][2]. You will need the cooperation of the authors
and editors to complete these checks.

Note that some numbered items contain multiple related questions; please be sure
to answer all of them.

## 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?

The WGLC last for long time, during this time we got approval from some members and also its reviews, but for the last versions including the correction of the reviews, members were silent, no rejection gotten.


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

No, concerns were discussed in interim meetings and IETF meetings, issues were addressed.

3. Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If
  so, please summarize 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

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][3] recommends) or elsewhere
  (where)?

No implementation known. Students presented interest to implement in near future.

## 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.
The document aims for RPL protocol, no immediate dependency in other WGs. Although, terminology was corrected to align with RAW working group (RAW architecture). Also, this work will be useful for 6tisch implementations.

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.

Not applicable for this document

7. If the document contains a YANG module, has the final version of the module
  been checked with any of the [recommended validation tools][4] 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][5]?
Not applicable for this document

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.
Not applicable for this document

## 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?

The document is clearly written.

Minor issues were found in the shepherd review that were addressed by the authors in version 32

10. Several IETF Areas have assembled [lists of common issues that their
    reviewers encounter][6]. For which areas have such issues been identified
    and addressed? For which does this still need to happen in subsequent
    reviews?

Issues addressed were mainly for routing area.

11. What type of RFC publication is being requested on the IETF stream ([Best
    Current Practice][12], [Proposed Standard, Internet Standard][13],
    [Informational, Experimental or Historic][14])? Why is this the proper type
    of RFC? Do all Datatracker state attributes correctly reflect this intent?

Intended Status: Standards Track
This specification introduces protocol extensions that enrich the topological information available to the Root with sibling relationships to enable a RPL Root to install and maintain Projected Routes within its DODAG for a chosen duration.

12. Have reasonable efforts been made to remind all authors of the intellectual
    property rights (IPR) disclosure obligations described in [BCP 79][7]? 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.

This document has associted two IPRs:

1. https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/2620/
2. https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/2620/

The authors confirm that there are no additional IPRs than the one mentioned above:
- Pascal Thubert provided IPR confirmation of version 30 on December 2022
- Rahul Jahav provided IPR confirmation on version 30 on December 2022
- Michael Richardson provided IPR confirmation on October 2022 of version 21

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.

Yes, the authors accepted to be listed as such.

14. Document any remaining I-D nits in this document. Simply running the [idnits
    tool][8] is not enough; please review the ["Content Guidelines" on
    authors.ietf.org][15]. (Also note that the current idnits tool generates
    some incorrect warnings; a rewrite is underway.)

From idnits check: https://author-tools.ietf.org/api/idnits?url=https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-roll-dao-projection-32.txt

Result:    (See RFCs 3967 and 4897 for information about using normative references
    to lower-maturity documents in RFCs)

  == Missing Reference: 'THIS RFC' is mentioned on line 3393, but not defined

  ** Downref: Normative reference to an Informational RFC: RFC 9030

  == Outdated reference: A later version (-14) exists of
    draft-ietf-raw-architecture-11

  ** Downref: Normative reference to an Informational draft:
    draft-ietf-raw-architecture (ref. 'RAW-ARCHI')

  -- No information found for draft-irtf-panrg-path-properties - is the name
    correct?

Summary: 2 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 7 warnings (==), 5 comments (--).

15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the [IESG
    Statement on Normative and Informative References][16].
From AD comment:
RFC4655, as used, can be an Informational reference.
RFC9030 has been used before as a downref, so there won’t be an issue using it as Normative.
For raw-architecture draft, it is understood that as used can be an Information Reference

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

The normative references comprise IETF documents.

17. Are there any normative downward references (see [RFC 3967][9] and [BCP
    97][10]) that are not already listed in the [DOWNREF registry][17]? If so,
    list them.
No

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?

draft-ietf-raw-architecture-11: work in progress. From RAW Charter it was aimed to be finished on May 2022

19. Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? If
    so, does the Datatracker metadata correctly reflect this and are those RFCs
    listed on the title page, in the abstract, and discussed in the
    introduction? If not, explain why and point to the part of the document
    where the relationship of this document to these other RFCs is discussed.

The status of other RFCs are not changed. However, this document updates RFC 6550, RFC 6553, and RFC 8138. The explanation of these updates are included in the document in Section 4.

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][11]).


IANA Requests are made correctly, just some nits mentioned below.

This document includes 16 IANA Considerations requests:
1. RPL DODAG Configuration Option Flag
2. Elective 6LoWPAN Routing Header Type: nits addressed in the github file
3. Critical 6LoWPAN Routing Header Type: nits addressed in the github file
4. Registry For The RPL Option Flags
5. RPL Control Codes
6. RPL Control Message Options
7. SubRegistry for the Projected DAO Request Flags
8. SubRegistry for the PDR-ACK Flags
9. Registry for the PDR-ACK Acceptance Status Values
10. Registry for the PDR-ACK Rejection Status Values
11. SubRegistry for the Via Information Options Flags
12. SubRegistry for the Sibling Information Option Flags
13. Destination Advertisement Object Flag
14. Destination Advertisement Object Acknowledgment Flag
15. New ICMPv6 Error Code: nits addressed in the github file
16. RPL Rejection Status values.: nits addressed in the github file

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.

[1]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/
[2]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4858.html
[3]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7942.html
[4]: https://trac.ietf.org/trac/ops/wiki/yang-review-tools
[5]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8342.html
[6]: https://trac.ietf.org/trac/iesg/wiki/ExpertTopics
[7]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp79
[8]: https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/
[9]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3967.html
[10]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp97
[11]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8126.html
[12]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-5
[13]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.1
[14]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.2
[15]: https://authors.ietf.org/en/content-guidelines-overview
[16]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/normative-informative-references/
[17]: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/downref/

Not applicable

Note: The routing directorate review is in progress, unfortunately it has taken very long, it is expected that it will be be submitted soon [https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-roll-dao-projection/reviewrequest/16930/].

# Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents

Document: draft-ietf-roll-dao-projection-32
Shepherd: Ines Robles
Date: 28.06.2023
AD: John Scudder

Thank you for your service as a document shepherd. Among the responsibilities is
answering the questions in this write-up to give helpful context to Last Call
and Internet Engineering Steering Group ([IESG][1]) reviewers, and your
diligence in completing it is appreciated. The full role of the shepherd is
further described in [RFC 4858][2]. You will need the cooperation of the authors
and editors to complete these checks.

Note that some numbered items contain multiple related questions; please be sure
to answer all of them.

## 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?

The WGLC last for long time, during this time we got approval from some members and also its reviews, but for the last versions including the correction of the reviews, members were silent, no rejection gotten.


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

No, concerns were discussed in interim meetings and IETF meetings, issues were addressed.

3. Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If
  so, please summarize 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

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][3] recommends) or elsewhere
  (where)?

No implementation known. Students presented interest to implement in near future.

## 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.
The document aims for RPL protocol, no immediate dependency in other WGs. Although, terminology was corrected to align with RAW working group (RAW architecture). Also, this work will be useful for 6tisch implementations.

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.

Not applicable for this document

7. If the document contains a YANG module, has the final version of the module
  been checked with any of the [recommended validation tools][4] 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][5]?
Not applicable for this document

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.
Not applicable for this document

## 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?

The document is clearly written.

Minor issues were found in the shepherd review that were addressed by the authors in version 32

10. Several IETF Areas have assembled [lists of common issues that their
    reviewers encounter][6]. For which areas have such issues been identified
    and addressed? For which does this still need to happen in subsequent
    reviews?

Issues addressed were mainly for routing area.

11. What type of RFC publication is being requested on the IETF stream ([Best
    Current Practice][12], [Proposed Standard, Internet Standard][13],
    [Informational, Experimental or Historic][14])? Why is this the proper type
    of RFC? Do all Datatracker state attributes correctly reflect this intent?

Intended Status: Standards Track
This specification introduces protocol extensions that enrich the topological information available to the Root with sibling relationships to enable a RPL Root to install and maintain Projected Routes within its DODAG for a chosen duration.

12. Have reasonable efforts been made to remind all authors of the intellectual
    property rights (IPR) disclosure obligations described in [BCP 79][7]? 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.

This document has associted two IPRs:

1. https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/2620/
2. https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/2620/

The authors confirm that there are no additional IPRs than the one mentioned above:
- Pascal Thubert provided IPR confirmation of version 30 on December 2022
- Rahul Jahav provided IPR confirmation on version 30 on December 2022
- Michael Richardson provided IPR confirmation on October 2022 of version 21

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.

Yes, the authors accepted to be listed as such.

14. Document any remaining I-D nits in this document. Simply running the [idnits
    tool][8] is not enough; please review the ["Content Guidelines" on
    authors.ietf.org][15]. (Also note that the current idnits tool generates
    some incorrect warnings; a rewrite is underway.)

From idnits check: https://author-tools.ietf.org/api/idnits?url=https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-roll-dao-projection-32.txt

Result:    (See RFCs 3967 and 4897 for information about using normative references
    to lower-maturity documents in RFCs)

  == Missing Reference: 'THIS RFC' is mentioned on line 3393, but not defined

  ** Downref: Normative reference to an Informational RFC: RFC 9030

  == Outdated reference: A later version (-14) exists of
    draft-ietf-raw-architecture-11

  ** Downref: Normative reference to an Informational draft:
    draft-ietf-raw-architecture (ref. 'RAW-ARCHI')

  -- No information found for draft-irtf-panrg-path-properties - is the name
    correct?

Summary: 2 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 7 warnings (==), 5 comments (--).

15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the [IESG
    Statement on Normative and Informative References][16].
From AD comment:
RFC4655, as used, can be an Informational reference.
RFC9030 has been used before as a downref, so there won’t be an issue using it as Normative.
For raw-architecture draft, it is understood that as used can be an Information Reference

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

The normative references comprise IETF documents.

17. Are there any normative downward references (see [RFC 3967][9] and [BCP
    97][10]) that are not already listed in the [DOWNREF registry][17]? If so,
    list them.
No

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?

draft-ietf-raw-architecture-11: work in progress. From RAW Charter it was aimed to be finished on May 2022

19. Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? If
    so, does the Datatracker metadata correctly reflect this and are those RFCs
    listed on the title page, in the abstract, and discussed in the
    introduction? If not, explain why and point to the part of the document
    where the relationship of this document to these other RFCs is discussed.

The status of other RFCs are not changed. However, this document updates RFC 6550, RFC 6553, and RFC 8138. The explanation of these updates are included in the document in Section 4.

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][11]).


IANA Requests are made correctly, just some nits mentioned below.

This document includes 16 IANA Considerations requests:
1. RPL DODAG Configuration Option Flag
2. Elective 6LoWPAN Routing Header Type: nits addressed in the github file
3. Critical 6LoWPAN Routing Header Type: nits addressed in the github file
4. Registry For The RPL Option Flags
5. RPL Control Codes
6. RPL Control Message Options
7. SubRegistry for the Projected DAO Request Flags
8. SubRegistry for the PDR-ACK Flags
9. Registry for the PDR-ACK Acceptance Status Values
10. Registry for the PDR-ACK Rejection Status Values
11. SubRegistry for the Via Information Options Flags
12. SubRegistry for the Sibling Information Option Flags
13. Destination Advertisement Object Flag
14. Destination Advertisement Object Acknowledgment Flag
15. New ICMPv6 Error Code: nits addressed in the github file
16. RPL Rejection Status values.: nits addressed in the github file

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.

[1]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/
[2]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4858.html
[3]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7942.html
[4]: https://trac.ietf.org/trac/ops/wiki/yang-review-tools
[5]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8342.html
[6]: https://trac.ietf.org/trac/iesg/wiki/ExpertTopics
[7]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp79
[8]: https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/
[9]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3967.html
[10]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp97
[11]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8126.html
[12]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-5
[13]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.1
[14]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.2
[15]: https://authors.ietf.org/en/content-guidelines-overview
[16]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/normative-informative-references/
[17]: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/downref/

Not applicable

Note: The routing directorate review is in progress, unfortunately it has taken very long, it is expected that it will be be submitted soon [https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-roll-dao-projection/reviewrequest/16930/].

# Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents

Document: draft-ietf-roll-dao-projection-32
Shepherd: Ines Robles
Date: 28.06.2023
AD: John Scudder

Thank you for your service as a document shepherd. Among the responsibilities is
answering the questions in this write-up to give helpful context to Last Call
and Internet Engineering Steering Group ([IESG][1]) reviewers, and your
diligence in completing it is appreciated. The full role of the shepherd is
further described in [RFC 4858][2]. You will need the cooperation of the authors
and editors to complete these checks.

Note that some numbered items contain multiple related questions; please be sure
to answer all of them.

## 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?

The WGLC last for long time, during this time we got approval from some members and also its reviews, but for the last versions including the correction of the reviews, members were silent, no rejection gotten.


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

No, concerns were discussed in interim meetings and IETF meetings, issues were addressed.

3. Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If
  so, please summarize 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

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][3] recommends) or elsewhere
  (where)?

No implementation known. Students presented interest to implement in near future.

## 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.
The document aims for RPL protocol, no immediate dependency in other WGs. Although, terminology was corrected to align with RAW working group (RAW architecture). Also, this work will be useful for 6tisch implementations.

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.

Not applicable for this document

7. If the document contains a YANG module, has the final version of the module
  been checked with any of the [recommended validation tools][4] 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][5]?
Not applicable for this document

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.
Not applicable for this document

## 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?

The document is clearly written.

Minor issues were found in the shepherd review that were addressed by the authors in version 32

10. Several IETF Areas have assembled [lists of common issues that their
    reviewers encounter][6]. For which areas have such issues been identified
    and addressed? For which does this still need to happen in subsequent
    reviews?

Issues addressed were mainly for routing area.

11. What type of RFC publication is being requested on the IETF stream ([Best
    Current Practice][12], [Proposed Standard, Internet Standard][13],
    [Informational, Experimental or Historic][14])? Why is this the proper type
    of RFC? Do all Datatracker state attributes correctly reflect this intent?

Intended Status: Standards Track
This specification introduces protocol extensions that enrich the topological information available to the Root with sibling relationships to enable a RPL Root to install and maintain Projected Routes within its DODAG for a chosen duration.

12. Have reasonable efforts been made to remind all authors of the intellectual
    property rights (IPR) disclosure obligations described in [BCP 79][7]? 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.

This document has associted two IPRs:

1. https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/2620/
2. https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/2620/

The authors confirm that there are no additional IPRs than the one mentioned above:
- Pascal Thubert provided IPR confirmation of version 30 on December 2022
- Rahul Jahav provided IPR confirmation on version 30 on December 2022
- Michael Richardson provided IPR confirmation on October 2022 of version 21

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.

Yes, the authors accepted to be listed as such.

14. Document any remaining I-D nits in this document. Simply running the [idnits
    tool][8] is not enough; please review the ["Content Guidelines" on
    authors.ietf.org][15]. (Also note that the current idnits tool generates
    some incorrect warnings; a rewrite is underway.)

From idnits check: https://author-tools.ietf.org/api/idnits?url=https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-roll-dao-projection-32.txt

Result:    (See RFCs 3967 and 4897 for information about using normative references
    to lower-maturity documents in RFCs)

  == Missing Reference: 'THIS RFC' is mentioned on line 3393, but not defined

  ** Downref: Normative reference to an Informational RFC: RFC 9030

  == Outdated reference: A later version (-14) exists of
    draft-ietf-raw-architecture-11

  ** Downref: Normative reference to an Informational draft:
    draft-ietf-raw-architecture (ref. 'RAW-ARCHI')

  -- No information found for draft-irtf-panrg-path-properties - is the name
    correct?

Summary: 2 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 7 warnings (==), 5 comments (--).

15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the [IESG
    Statement on Normative and Informative References][16].
From AD comment:
RFC4655, as used, can be an Informational reference.
RFC9030 has been used before as a downref, so there won’t be an issue using it as Normative.
For raw-architecture draft, it is understood that as used can be an Information Reference

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

The normative references comprise IETF documents.

17. Are there any normative downward references (see [RFC 3967][9] and [BCP
    97][10]) that are not already listed in the [DOWNREF registry][17]? If so,
    list them.
No

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?

draft-ietf-raw-architecture-11: work in progress. From RAW Charter it was aimed to be finished on May 2022

19. Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? If
    so, does the Datatracker metadata correctly reflect this and are those RFCs
    listed on the title page, in the abstract, and discussed in the
    introduction? If not, explain why and point to the part of the document
    where the relationship of this document to these other RFCs is discussed.

The status of other RFCs are not changed. However, this document updates RFC 6550, RFC 6553, and RFC 8138. The explanation of these updates are included in the document in Section 4.

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][11]).


IANA Requests are made correctly, just some nits mentioned below.

This document includes 16 IANA Considerations requests:
1. RPL DODAG Configuration Option Flag
2. Elective 6LoWPAN Routing Header Type: nits addressed in the github file
3. Critical 6LoWPAN Routing Header Type: nits addressed in the github file
4. Registry For The RPL Option Flags
5. RPL Control Codes
6. RPL Control Message Options
7. SubRegistry for the Projected DAO Request Flags
8. SubRegistry for the PDR-ACK Flags
9. Registry for the PDR-ACK Acceptance Status Values
10. Registry for the PDR-ACK Rejection Status Values
11. SubRegistry for the Via Information Options Flags
12. SubRegistry for the Sibling Information Option Flags
13. Destination Advertisement Object Flag
14. Destination Advertisement Object Acknowledgment Flag
15. New ICMPv6 Error Code: nits addressed in the github file
16. RPL Rejection Status values.: nits addressed in the github file

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.

[1]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/
[2]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4858.html
[3]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7942.html
[4]: https://trac.ietf.org/trac/ops/wiki/yang-review-tools
[5]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8342.html
[6]: https://trac.ietf.org/trac/iesg/wiki/ExpertTopics
[7]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp79
[8]: https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/
[9]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3967.html
[10]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp97
[11]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8126.html
[12]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-5
[13]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.1
[14]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.2
[15]: https://authors.ietf.org/en/content-guidelines-overview
[16]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/normative-informative-references/
[17]: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/downref/

Not applicable

Note: The routing directorate review is in progress, to be submitted soon [https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-roll-dao-projection/reviewrequest/16930/]

# Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents

Document: draft-ietf-roll-dao-projection-31
Shepherd: Ines Robles
Date: 28.06.2023
AD: John Scudder

Thank you for your service as a document shepherd. Among the responsibilities is
answering the questions in this write-up to give helpful context to Last Call
and Internet Engineering Steering Group ([IESG][1]) reviewers, and your
diligence in completing it is appreciated. The full role of the shepherd is
further described in [RFC 4858][2]. You will need the cooperation of the authors
and editors to complete these checks.

Note that some numbered items contain multiple related questions; please be sure
to answer all of them.

## 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?

The WGLC last for long time, during this time we got approval from some members and also its reviews, but for the last versions including the correction of the reviews, members were silent, no rejection gotten.


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

No, concerns were discussed in interim meetings and IETF meetings, issues were addressed.

3. Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If
  so, please summarize 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

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][3] recommends) or elsewhere
  (where)?

No implementation known. Students presented interest to implement in near future.

## 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.
The document aims for RPL protocol, no immediate dependency in other WGs. Although, terminology was corrected to align with RAW working group (RAW architecture). Also, this work will be useful for 6tisch implementations.

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.

Not applicable for this document

7. If the document contains a YANG module, has the final version of the module
  been checked with any of the [recommended validation tools][4] 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][5]?
Not applicable for this document

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.
Not applicable for this document

## 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?

The document is clearly written.

Minor issues were found in the shepherd review that were addressed by the authors in version 31.

Still some minor issues/nits are present in version 31 (no reported in version 30). These minor issues were addressed in the github version: https://github.com/roll-wg/dao-projection/commit/5225d2722b27e217e028b1ebf69eb21b17c60709 (Listed below in this document as well, in the section [Minor Issues-Nits])

10. Several IETF Areas have assembled [lists of common issues that their
    reviewers encounter][6]. For which areas have such issues been identified
    and addressed? For which does this still need to happen in subsequent
    reviews?

Issues addressed were mainly for routing area.

11. What type of RFC publication is being requested on the IETF stream ([Best
    Current Practice][12], [Proposed Standard, Internet Standard][13],
    [Informational, Experimental or Historic][14])? Why is this the proper type
    of RFC? Do all Datatracker state attributes correctly reflect this intent?

Intended Status: Standards Track
This specification introduces protocol extensions that enrich the topological information available to the Root with sibling relationships to enable a RPL Root to install and maintain Projected Routes within its DODAG for a chosen duration.

12. Have reasonable efforts been made to remind all authors of the intellectual
    property rights (IPR) disclosure obligations described in [BCP 79][7]? 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.

This document has associted two IPRs:

1. https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/2620/
2. https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/2620/

The authors confirm that there are no additional IPRs than the one mentioned above:
- Pascal Thubert provided IPR confirmation of version 30 on December 2022
- Rahul Jahav provided IPR confirmation on version 30 on December 2022
- Michael Richardson provided IPR confirmation on October 2022 of version 21

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.

Yes, the authors accepted to be listed as such.

14. Document any remaining I-D nits in this document. Simply running the [idnits
    tool][8] is not enough; please review the ["Content Guidelines" on
    authors.ietf.org][15]. (Also note that the current idnits tool generates
    some incorrect warnings; a rewrite is underway.)

From idnits check: https://author-tools.ietf.org/api/idnits?url=https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-roll-dao-projection-31.txt

Result:    (See RFCs 3967 and 4897 for information about using normative references
    to lower-maturity documents in RFCs)

  == Missing Reference: 'THIS RFC' is mentioned on line 3393, but not defined

  ** Downref: Normative reference to an Informational RFC: RFC 4655

  ** Downref: Normative reference to an Informational RFC: RFC 9030

  ** Downref: Normative reference to an Informational draft:
    draft-ietf-raw-architecture (ref. 'RAW-ARCHI')

  == Outdated reference: A later version (-11) exists of
    draft-ietf-raw-use-cases-08

  == Outdated reference: A later version (-08) exists of
    draft-irtf-panrg-path-properties-06

15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the [IESG
    Statement on Normative and Informative References][16].
From AD comment:
RFC4655, as used, can be an Informational reference.
RFC9030 has been used before as a downref, so there won’t be an issue using it as Normative.
For raw-architecture draft, it is understood that as used can be an Information Reference

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

The normative references comprise IETF documents.

17. Are there any normative downward references (see [RFC 3967][9] and [BCP
    97][10]) that are not already listed in the [DOWNREF registry][17]? If so,
    list them.
No

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?

draft-ietf-raw-architecture-11: work in progress. From RAW Charter it was aimed to be finished on May 2022

19. Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? If
    so, does the Datatracker metadata correctly reflect this and are those RFCs
    listed on the title page, in the abstract, and discussed in the
    introduction? If not, explain why and point to the part of the document
    where the relationship of this document to these other RFCs is discussed.

The status of other RFCs are not changed. However, this document updates RFC 6550, RFC 6553, and RFC 8138. The explanation of these updates are included in the document in Section 4.

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][11]).


IANA Requests are made correctly, just some nits mentioned below.

This document includes 16 IANA Considerations requests:
1. RPL DODAG Configuration Option Flag
2. Elective 6LoWPAN Routing Header Type: nits addressed in the github file
3. Critical 6LoWPAN Routing Header Type: nits addressed in the github file
4. Registry For The RPL Option Flags
5. RPL Control Codes
6. RPL Control Message Options
7. SubRegistry for the Projected DAO Request Flags
8. SubRegistry for the PDR-ACK Flags
9. Registry for the PDR-ACK Acceptance Status Values
10. Registry for the PDR-ACK Rejection Status Values
11. SubRegistry for the Via Information Options Flags
12. SubRegistry for the Sibling Information Option Flags
13. Destination Advertisement Object Flag
14. Destination Advertisement Object Acknowledgment Flag
15. New ICMPv6 Error Code: nits addressed in the github file
16. RPL Rejection Status values.: nits addressed in the github file

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.

[1]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/
[2]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4858.html
[3]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7942.html
[4]: https://trac.ietf.org/trac/ops/wiki/yang-review-tools
[5]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8342.html
[6]: https://trac.ietf.org/trac/iesg/wiki/ExpertTopics
[7]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp79
[8]: https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/
[9]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3967.html
[10]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp97
[11]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8126.html
[12]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-5
[13]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.1
[14]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.2
[15]: https://authors.ietf.org/en/content-guidelines-overview
[16]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/normative-informative-references/
[17]: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/downref/

Not applicable

----------------------------------------------------------------------
[Minor Issues-Nits] addressed in Github in version 32 https://github.com/roll-wg/dao-projection/commit/5225d2722b27e217e028b1ebf69eb21b17c60709

Section 11.2: "...under the heading "Routing Protocol for Low Power and Lossy Networks (RPL)", should it be " ..under the heading "IPv6 Low Power Personal Area Network Parameters".." based on
https://www.iana.org/assignments/_6lowpan-parameters/_6lowpan-parameters.xhtml#elective-6lowpan-routing-header-type

Same as section 11.3: "...under the heading "Routing Protocol for Low Power and Lossy Networks (RPL)", should it be " ..under the heading "IPv6 Low Power Personal Area Network Parameters".." based on
https://www.iana.org/assignments/_6lowpan-parameters/_6lowpan-parameters.xhtml#critical-6lowpan-routing-header-type

Section 11.15:

1- ..ICMPv6 Code Fields Registry --> ICMPv6 "Code" Fields Registry
2- ICMPv6 Message Type 1 --> ICMPv6 Message Type 1 "Destination Unreachable" ?
3- The code 8 is already assigned to "Headers too long" [ RFC8883], but I think IANA can assign another code number

Section 11.16: Statuss --> Status

The routing directorate review is in progress, to be submitted soon [https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-roll-dao-projection/reviewrequest/16930/]

# Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents

Document: draft-ietf-roll-dao-projection-31
Shepherd: Ines Robles
Date: 28.06.2023
AD: John Scudder

Thank you for your service as a document shepherd. Among the responsibilities is
answering the questions in this write-up to give helpful context to Last Call
and Internet Engineering Steering Group ([IESG][1]) reviewers, and your
diligence in completing it is appreciated. The full role of the shepherd is
further described in [RFC 4858][2]. You will need the cooperation of the authors
and editors to complete these checks.

Note that some numbered items contain multiple related questions; please be sure
to answer all of them.

## 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?

The WGLC last for long time, during this time we got approval from some members and also its reviews, but for the last versions including the correction of the reviews, members were silent, no rejection gotten.

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

No, concerns were discussed in interim meetings and IETF meetings, issues were addressed.

3. Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If
  so, please summarize 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

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][3] recommends) or elsewhere
  (where)?

No implementation known. Students presented interest to implement in near future.

## 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.
The document aims for RPL protocol, no immediate dependency in other WGs. Although, terminology was corrected to align with RAW working group (RAW architecture). Also, this work will be useful for 6tisch implementations.

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.

Not applicable for this document

7. If the document contains a YANG module, has the final version of the module
  been checked with any of the [recommended validation tools][4] 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][5]?
Not applicable for this document

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.
Not applicable for this document

## 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?

The document is clearly written.

Minor issues were found in the shepherd review that were addressed by the authors in version 31.

Still some minor issues/nits are present in version 31 (no reported in version 30). These minor issues were addressed in the github version: https://github.com/roll-wg/dao-projection/commit/5225d2722b27e217e028b1ebf69eb21b17c60709 (Listed below in this document as well, in the section [Minor Issues-Nits])

10. Several IETF Areas have assembled [lists of common issues that their
    reviewers encounter][6]. For which areas have such issues been identified
    and addressed? For which does this still need to happen in subsequent
    reviews?

Issues addressed were mainly for routing area.

11. What type of RFC publication is being requested on the IETF stream ([Best
    Current Practice][12], [Proposed Standard, Internet Standard][13],
    [Informational, Experimental or Historic][14])? Why is this the proper type
    of RFC? Do all Datatracker state attributes correctly reflect this intent?

Intended Status: Standards Track
This specification introduces protocol extensions that enrich the topological information available to the Root with sibling relationships to enable a RPL Root to install and maintain Projected Routes within its DODAG for a chosen duration.

12. Have reasonable efforts been made to remind all authors of the intellectual
    property rights (IPR) disclosure obligations described in [BCP 79][7]? 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.

This document has associted two IPRs:

1. https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/2620/
2. https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/2620/

The authors confirm that there are no additional IPRs than the one mentioned above:
- Pascal Thubert provided IPR confirmation of version 30 on December 2022
- Rahul Jahav provided IPR confirmation on version 30 on December 2022
- Michael Richardson provided IPR confirmation on October 2022 of version 21

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.

Yes, the authors accepted to be listed as such.

14. Document any remaining I-D nits in this document. Simply running the [idnits
    tool][8] is not enough; please review the ["Content Guidelines" on
    authors.ietf.org][15]. (Also note that the current idnits tool generates
    some incorrect warnings; a rewrite is underway.)

From idnits check: https://author-tools.ietf.org/api/idnits?url=https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-roll-dao-projection-31.txt

Result:    (See RFCs 3967 and 4897 for information about using normative references
    to lower-maturity documents in RFCs)

  == Missing Reference: 'THIS RFC' is mentioned on line 3393, but not defined

  ** Downref: Normative reference to an Informational RFC: RFC 4655

  ** Downref: Normative reference to an Informational RFC: RFC 9030

  ** Downref: Normative reference to an Informational draft:
    draft-ietf-raw-architecture (ref. 'RAW-ARCHI')

  == Outdated reference: A later version (-11) exists of
    draft-ietf-raw-use-cases-08

  == Outdated reference: A later version (-08) exists of
    draft-irtf-panrg-path-properties-06

15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the [IESG
    Statement on Normative and Informative References][16].
From AD comment:
RFC4655, as used, can be an Informational reference.
RFC9030 has been used before as a downref, so there won’t be an issue using it as Normative.
For raw-architecture draft, it is understood that as used can be an Information Reference

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

The normative references comprise IETF documents.

17. Are there any normative downward references (see [RFC 3967][9] and [BCP
    97][10]) that are not already listed in the [DOWNREF registry][17]? If so,
    list them.
No

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?

draft-ietf-raw-architecture-10: work in progress. From RAW Charter it was aimed to be finished on May 2022

19. Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? If
    so, does the Datatracker metadata correctly reflect this and are those RFCs
    listed on the title page, in the abstract, and discussed in the
    introduction? If not, explain why and point to the part of the document
    where the relationship of this document to these other RFCs is discussed.

The status of other RFCs are not changed. However, this document updates RFC 6550, RFC 6553, and RFC 8138. The explanation of these updates are included in the document in Section 4.

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][11]).


IANA Requests are made correctly, just some nits mentioned below.

This document includes 16 IANA Considerations requests:
1. RPL DODAG Configuration Option Flag
2. Elective 6LoWPAN Routing Header Type: nits addressed in the github file
3. Critical 6LoWPAN Routing Header Type: nits addressed in the github file
4. Registry For The RPL Option Flags
5. RPL Control Codes
6. RPL Control Message Options
7. SubRegistry for the Projected DAO Request Flags
8. SubRegistry for the PDR-ACK Flags
9. Registry for the PDR-ACK Acceptance Status Values
10. Registry for the PDR-ACK Rejection Status Values
11. SubRegistry for the Via Information Options Flags
12. SubRegistry for the Sibling Information Option Flags
13. Destination Advertisement Object Flag
14. Destination Advertisement Object Acknowledgment Flag
15. New ICMPv6 Error Code: nits addressed in the github file
16. RPL Rejection Status values.: nits addressed in the github file

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.

[1]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/
[2]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4858.html
[3]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7942.html
[4]: https://trac.ietf.org/trac/ops/wiki/yang-review-tools
[5]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8342.html
[6]: https://trac.ietf.org/trac/iesg/wiki/ExpertTopics
[7]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp79
[8]: https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/
[9]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3967.html
[10]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp97
[11]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8126.html
[12]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-5
[13]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.1
[14]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.2
[15]: https://authors.ietf.org/en/content-guidelines-overview
[16]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/normative-informative-references/
[17]: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/downref/

Not applicable

----------------------------------------------------------------------
[Minor Issues-Nits] addressed in Github in version 32 https://github.com/roll-wg/dao-projection/commit/5225d2722b27e217e028b1ebf69eb21b17c60709

Section 11.2: "...under the heading "Routing Protocol for Low Power and Lossy Networks (RPL)", should it be " ..under the heading "IPv6 Low Power Personal Area Network Parameters".." based on
https://www.iana.org/assignments/_6lowpan-parameters/_6lowpan-parameters.xhtml#elective-6lowpan-routing-header-type

Same as section 11.3: "...under the heading "Routing Protocol for Low Power and Lossy Networks (RPL)", should it be " ..under the heading "IPv6 Low Power Personal Area Network Parameters".." based on
https://www.iana.org/assignments/_6lowpan-parameters/_6lowpan-parameters.xhtml#critical-6lowpan-routing-header-type

Section 11.15:

1- ..ICMPv6 Code Fields Registry --> ICMPv6 "Code" Fields Registry
2- ICMPv6 Message Type 1 --> ICMPv6 Message Type 1 "Destination Unreachable" ?
3- The code 8 is already assigned to "Headers too long" [ RFC8883], but I think IANA can assign another code number

Section 11.16: Statuss --> Status

The routing directorate review is in progress, to be submitted soon [https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-roll-dao-projection/reviewrequest/16930/]

# Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents

Document: draft-ietf-roll-dao-projection-30
Shepherd: Ines Robles
Date: 4.1.2023
AD: Alvaro Retana

Thank you for your service as a document shepherd. Among the responsibilities is
answering the questions in this write-up to give helpful context to Last Call
and Internet Engineering Steering Group ([IESG][1]) reviewers, and your
diligence in completing it is appreciated. The full role of the shepherd is
further described in [RFC 4858][2]. You will need the cooperation of the authors
and editors to complete these checks.

Note that some numbered items contain multiple related questions; please be sure
to answer all of them.

## 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?

The WGLC last for long time, during this time we got approval from some members and also its reviews, but for the last versions including the correction of the reviews, members were silent, no rejection gotten.

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

No, concerns were discussed in interim meetings and IETF meetings, issues were addressed.

3. Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If
  so, please summarize 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

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][3] recommends) or elsewhere
  (where)?

No implementation known. Students presented interest to implement in near future.

## 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.
The document aims for RPL protocol, no immediate dependency in other WGs. Although, terminology was corrected to align with RAW working group (RAW architecture). Also, this work will be useful for 6tisch implementations.

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.

Not applicable for this document

7. If the document contains a YANG module, has the final version of the module
  been checked with any of the [recommended validation tools][4] 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][5]?
Not applicable for this document

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.
Not applicable for this document

## 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?

The document is clearly written.

Minor issues were found in the shepherd review that were addressed by the authors in version 31.

Still some minor issues/nits are present in version 31 (no reported in version 30). These minor issues were addressed in the github version: https://github.com/roll-wg/dao-projection/commit/5225d2722b27e217e028b1ebf69eb21b17c60709 (Listed below in this document as well, in the section [Minor Issues-Nits])

10. Several IETF Areas have assembled [lists of common issues that their
    reviewers encounter][6]. For which areas have such issues been identified
    and addressed? For which does this still need to happen in subsequent
    reviews?

Issues addressed were mainly for routing area.

11. What type of RFC publication is being requested on the IETF stream ([Best
    Current Practice][12], [Proposed Standard, Internet Standard][13],
    [Informational, Experimental or Historic][14])? Why is this the proper type
    of RFC? Do all Datatracker state attributes correctly reflect this intent?

Intended Status: Standards Track
This specification introduces protocol extensions that enrich the topological information available to the Root with sibling relationships to enable a RPL Root to install and maintain Projected Routes within its DODAG for a chosen duration.

12. Have reasonable efforts been made to remind all authors of the intellectual
    property rights (IPR) disclosure obligations described in [BCP 79][7]? 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.

This document has associted two IPRs:

1. https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/2620/
2. https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/2620/

The authors confirm that there are no additional IPRs than the one mentioned above:
- Pascal Thubert provided IPR confirmation of version 30 on December 2022
- Rahul Jahav provided IPR confirmation on version 30 on December 2022
- Michael Richardson provided IPR confirmation on October 2022 of version 21

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.

Yes, the authors accepted to be listed as such.

14. Document any remaining I-D nits in this document. Simply running the [idnits
    tool][8] is not enough; please review the ["Content Guidelines" on
    authors.ietf.org][15]. (Also note that the current idnits tool generates
    some incorrect warnings; a rewrite is underway.)

From idnits check: https://author-tools.ietf.org/api/idnits?url=https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-roll-dao-projection-30.txt

Result:    Summary: 3 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 5 warnings (==), 1 comment (--).

    (See RFCs 3967 and 4897 for information about using normative references
    to lower-maturity documents in RFCs)

  ** Downref: Normative reference to an Informational RFC: RFC 4655

  ** Downref: Normative reference to an Informational RFC: RFC 9030

  == Outdated reference: A later version (-11) exists of
    draft-ietf-raw-architecture-10

  ** Downref: Normative reference to an Informational draft:
    draft-ietf-raw-architecture (ref. 'RAW-ARCHI')

15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the [IESG
    Statement on Normative and Informative References][16].
From AD comment:
RFC4655, as used, can be an Informational reference.
RFC9030 has been used before as a downref, so there won’t be an issue using it as Normative.
For raw-architecture draft, it is understood that as used can be an Information Reference

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

The normative references comprise IETF documents.

17. Are there any normative downward references (see [RFC 3967][9] and [BCP
    97][10]) that are not already listed in the [DOWNREF registry][17]? If so,
    list them.
No

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?

draft-ietf-raw-architecture-10: work in progress. From RAW Charter it was aimed to be finished on May 2022

19. Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? If
    so, does the Datatracker metadata correctly reflect this and are those RFCs
    listed on the title page, in the abstract, and discussed in the
    introduction? If not, explain why and point to the part of the document
    where the relationship of this document to these other RFCs is discussed.

The status of other RFCs are not changed. However, this document updates RFC 6550, RFC 6553, and RFC 8138. The explanation of these updates are included in the document in Section 4.

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][11]).


IANA Requests are made correctly, just some nits mentioned below.

This document includes 16 IANA Considerations requests:
1. RPL DODAG Configuration Option Flag
2. Elective 6LoWPAN Routing Header Type: nits addressed in the github file
3. Critical 6LoWPAN Routing Header Type: nits addressed in the github file
4. Registry For The RPL Option Flags
5. RPL Control Codes
6. RPL Control Message Options
7. SubRegistry for the Projected DAO Request Flags
8. SubRegistry for the PDR-ACK Flags
9. Registry for the PDR-ACK Acceptance Status Values
10. Registry for the PDR-ACK Rejection Status Values
11. SubRegistry for the Via Information Options Flags
12. SubRegistry for the Sibling Information Option Flags
13. Destination Advertisement Object Flag
14. Destination Advertisement Object Acknowledgment Flag
15. New ICMPv6 Error Code: nits addressed in the github file
16. RPL Rejection Status values.: nits addressed in the github file

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.

[1]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/
[2]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4858.html
[3]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7942.html
[4]: https://trac.ietf.org/trac/ops/wiki/yang-review-tools
[5]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8342.html
[6]: https://trac.ietf.org/trac/iesg/wiki/ExpertTopics
[7]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp79
[8]: https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/
[9]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3967.html
[10]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp97
[11]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8126.html
[12]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-5
[13]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.1
[14]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.2
[15]: https://authors.ietf.org/en/content-guidelines-overview
[16]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/normative-informative-references/
[17]: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/downref/

Not applicable

----------------------------------------------------------------------
[Minor Issues-Nits] addressed in Github in version 32 https://github.com/roll-wg/dao-projection/commit/5225d2722b27e217e028b1ebf69eb21b17c60709

Section 11.2: "...under the heading "Routing Protocol for Low Power and Lossy Networks (RPL)", should it be " ..under the heading "IPv6 Low Power Personal Area Network Parameters".." based on
https://www.iana.org/assignments/_6lowpan-parameters/_6lowpan-parameters.xhtml#elective-6lowpan-routing-header-type

Same as section 11.3: "...under the heading "Routing Protocol for Low Power and Lossy Networks (RPL)", should it be " ..under the heading "IPv6 Low Power Personal Area Network Parameters".." based on
https://www.iana.org/assignments/_6lowpan-parameters/_6lowpan-parameters.xhtml#critical-6lowpan-routing-header-type

Section 11.15:

1- ..ICMPv6 Code Fields Registry --> ICMPv6 "Code" Fields Registry
2- ICMPv6 Message Type 1 --> ICMPv6 Message Type 1 "Destination Unreachable" ?
3- The code 8 is already assigned to "Headers too long" [ RFC8883], but I think IANA can assign another code number

Section 11.16: Statuss --> Status

# Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents

Document: draft-ietf-roll-dao-projection-30
Shepherd: Ines Robles
Date: 4.1.2023
AD: Alvaro Retana

Thank you for your service as a document shepherd. Among the responsibilities is
answering the questions in this write-up to give helpful context to Last Call
and Internet Engineering Steering Group ([IESG][1]) reviewers, and your
diligence in completing it is appreciated. The full role of the shepherd is
further described in [RFC 4858][2]. You will need the cooperation of the authors
and editors to complete these checks.

Note that some numbered items contain multiple related questions; please be sure
to answer all of them.

## 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?

The WGLC last for long time, during this time we got approval from some members and also its reviews, but for the last versions including the correction of the reviews, members were silent, no rejection gotten.

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

No, concerns were discussed in interim meetings and IETF meetings, issues were addressed.

3. Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If
  so, please summarize 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

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][3] recommends) or elsewhere
  (where)?

No implementation known. Students presented interest to implement in near future.

## 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.
The document aims for RPL protocol, no immediate dependency in other WGs. Although, terminology was corrected to align with RAW working group (RAW architecture). Also, this work will be useful for 6tisch implementations.

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.

Not applicable for this document

7. If the document contains a YANG module, has the final version of the module
  been checked with any of the [recommended validation tools][4] 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][5]?
Not applicable for this document

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.
Not applicable for this document

## 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?

The document is clearly written.

Minor issues were found in the shepherd review that were addressed by the authors in version 31.

Still some minor issues/nits are present in version 31 (no reported in version 30). These minor issues were addressed in the github version: https://github.com/roll-wg/dao-projection/commit/5225d2722b27e217e028b1ebf69eb21b17c60709 (Listed below in this document as well, in the section [Minor Issues-Nits])

10. Several IETF Areas have assembled [lists of common issues that their
    reviewers encounter][6]. For which areas have such issues been identified
    and addressed? For which does this still need to happen in subsequent
    reviews?

Issues addressed were mainly for routing area.

11. What type of RFC publication is being requested on the IETF stream ([Best
    Current Practice][12], [Proposed Standard, Internet Standard][13],
    [Informational, Experimental or Historic][14])? Why is this the proper type
    of RFC? Do all Datatracker state attributes correctly reflect this intent?

Intended Status: Standards Track
This specification introduces protocol extensions that enrich the topological information available to the Root with sibling relationships to enable a RPL Root to install and maintain Projected Routes within its DODAG for a chosen duration.

12. Have reasonable efforts been made to remind all authors of the intellectual
    property rights (IPR) disclosure obligations described in [BCP 79][7]? 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.

This document has associted two IPRs:

1. https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/2620/
2. https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/2620/

The authors confirm that there are no additional IPRs than the one mentioned above:
- Pascal Thubert provided IPR confirmation of version 30 on December 2022
- Rahul Jahav provided IPR confirmation on version 30 on December 2022
- Michael Richardson provided IPR confirmation on October 2022 of version 21

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.

Yes, the authors accepted to be listed as such.

14. Document any remaining I-D nits in this document. Simply running the [idnits
    tool][8] is not enough; please review the ["Content Guidelines" on
    authors.ietf.org][15]. (Also note that the current idnits tool generates
    some incorrect warnings; a rewrite is underway.)

From idnits check: https://author-tools.ietf.org/api/idnits?url=https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-roll-dao-projection-30.txt

Result:    Summary: 3 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 5 warnings (==), 1 comment (--).

    (See RFCs 3967 and 4897 for information about using normative references
    to lower-maturity documents in RFCs)

  ** Downref: Normative reference to an Informational RFC: RFC 4655

  ** Downref: Normative reference to an Informational RFC: RFC 9030

  == Outdated reference: A later version (-11) exists of
    draft-ietf-raw-architecture-10

  ** Downref: Normative reference to an Informational draft:
    draft-ietf-raw-architecture (ref. 'RAW-ARCHI')

15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the [IESG
    Statement on Normative and Informative References][16].
From AD comment:
RFC4655, as used, can be an Informational reference.
RFC9030 has been used before as a downref, so there won’t be an issue using it as Normative.
For raw-architecture draft, it is understood that as used can be an Information Reference

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

The normative references comprise IETF documents.

17. Are there any normative downward references (see [RFC 3967][9] and [BCP
    97][10]) that are not already listed in the [DOWNREF registry][17]? If so,
    list them.
No

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?

draft-ietf-raw-architecture-10: work in progress. From RAW Charter it was aimed to be finished on May 2022

19. Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? If
    so, does the Datatracker metadata correctly reflect this and are those RFCs
    listed on the title page, in the abstract, and discussed in the
    introduction? If not, explain why and point to the part of the document
    where the relationship of this document to these other RFCs is discussed.

The status of other RFCs are not changed. However, this document updates RFC 6550, RFC 6553, and RFC 8138. The explanation of these updates are included in the document in Section 4.

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][11]).


IANA Requests are made correctly, just some nits mentioned below.

This document includes 16 IANA Considerations requests:
1. RPL DODAG Configuration Option Flag
2. Elective 6LoWPAN Routing Header Type: nits addressed in the github file
3. Critical 6LoWPAN Routing Header Type: nits addressed in the github file
4. Registry For The RPL Option Flags
5. RPL Control Codes
6. RPL Control Message Options
7. SubRegistry for the Projected DAO Request Flags
8. SubRegistry for the PDR-ACK Flags
9. Registry for the PDR-ACK Acceptance Status Values
10. Registry for the PDR-ACK Rejection Status Values
11. SubRegistry for the Via Information Options Flags
12. SubRegistry for the Sibling Information Option Flags
13. Destination Advertisement Object Flag
14. Destination Advertisement Object Acknowledgment Flag
15. New ICMPv6 Error Code: nits addressed in the github file
16. RPL Rejection Status values.: nits addressed in the github file

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.

[1]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/
[2]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4858.html
[3]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7942.html
[4]: https://trac.ietf.org/trac/ops/wiki/yang-review-tools
[5]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8342.html
[6]: https://trac.ietf.org/trac/iesg/wiki/ExpertTopics
[7]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp79
[8]: https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/
[9]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3967.html
[10]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp97
[11]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8126.html
[12]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-5
[13]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.1
[14]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.2
[15]: https://authors.ietf.org/en/content-guidelines-overview
[16]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/normative-informative-references/
[17]: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/downref/

Not applicable

----------------------------------------------------------------------
[Minor Issues-Nits] addressed in Github in version 32 https://github.com/roll-wg/dao-projection/commit/5225d2722b27e217e028b1ebf69eb21b17c60709

Section 11.2: "...under the heading "Routing Protocol for Low Power and Lossy Networks (RPL)", should it be " ..under the heading "IPv6 Low Power Personal Area Network Parameters".." based on
https://www.iana.org/assignments/_6lowpan-parameters/_6lowpan-parameters.xhtml#elective-6lowpan-routing-header-type

Same as section 11.3: "...under the heading "Routing Protocol for Low Power and Lossy Networks (RPL)", should it be " ..under the heading "IPv6 Low Power Personal Area Network Parameters".." based on
https://www.iana.org/assignments/_6lowpan-parameters/_6lowpan-parameters.xhtml#critical-6lowpan-routing-header-type

Section 11.15:

1- ..ICMPv6 Code Fields Registry --> ICMPv6 "Code" Fields Registry
2- ICMPv6 Message Type 1 --> ICMPv6 Message Type 1 "Destination Unreachable" ?
3- The code 8 is already assigned to "Headers too long" [ RFC8883], but I think IANA can assign another code number

Section 11.16: Statuss --> Status

# Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents

Document: draft-ietf-roll-dao-projection-30
Shepherd: Ines Robles
Date: 4.1.2023
AD: Alvaro Retana

Thank you for your service as a document shepherd. Among the responsibilities is
answering the questions in this write-up to give helpful context to Last Call
and Internet Engineering Steering Group ([IESG][1]) reviewers, and your
diligence in completing it is appreciated. The full role of the shepherd is
further described in [RFC 4858][2]. You will need the cooperation of the authors
and editors to complete these checks.

Note that some numbered items contain multiple related questions; please be sure
to answer all of them.

## 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?

The WGLC last for long time, during this time we got approval from some members and also its reviews, but for the last versions including the correction of the reviews, members were silent, no rejection gotten.

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

No, concerns were discussed in interim meetings and IETF meetings, issues were addressed.

3. Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If
  so, please summarize 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

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][3] recommends) or elsewhere
  (where)?

No implementation known. Students presented interest to implement in near future.

## 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.
The document aims for RPL protocol, no immediate dependency in other WGs. Although, terminology was corrected to align with RAW working group (RAW architecture). Also, this work will be useful for 6tisch implementations.

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.

Not applicable for this document

7. If the document contains a YANG module, has the final version of the module
  been checked with any of the [recommended validation tools][4] 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][5]?
Not applicable for this document

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.
Not applicable for this document

## 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?

The document is clearly written.

Minor issues were found in the shepherd review that were addressed by the authors in version 31.

Still some minor issues/nits are present in version 31 (no reported in version 30). These minor issues were addressed in the github version: https://github.com/roll-wg/dao-projection/commit/5225d2722b27e217e028b1ebf69eb21b17c60709 (Listed below in this document as well, in the section [Minor Issues-Nits])

10. Several IETF Areas have assembled [lists of common issues that their
    reviewers encounter][6]. For which areas have such issues been identified
    and addressed? For which does this still need to happen in subsequent
    reviews?

Issues addressed were mainly for routing area.

11. What type of RFC publication is being requested on the IETF stream ([Best
    Current Practice][12], [Proposed Standard, Internet Standard][13],
    [Informational, Experimental or Historic][14])? Why is this the proper type
    of RFC? Do all Datatracker state attributes correctly reflect this intent?

Intended Status: Standards Track
This specification introduces protocol extensions that enrich the topological information available to the Root with sibling relationships to enable a RPL Root to install and maintain Projected Routes within its DODAG for a chosen duration.

12. Have reasonable efforts been made to remind all authors of the intellectual
    property rights (IPR) disclosure obligations described in [BCP 79][7]? 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.

This document has associted two IPRs:

1. https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/2620/
2. https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/2620/

The authors confirm that there are no additional IPRs than the one mentioned above:
- Pascal Thubert provided IPR confirmation of version 30 on December 2022
- Rahul Jahav provided IPR confirmation on version 30 on December 2022
- Michael Richardson provided IPR confirmation on October 2022 of version 21

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.

Yes, the authors accepted to be listed as such.

14. Document any remaining I-D nits in this document. Simply running the [idnits
    tool][8] is not enough; please review the ["Content Guidelines" on
    authors.ietf.org][15]. (Also note that the current idnits tool generates
    some incorrect warnings; a rewrite is underway.)

From idnits check: https://author-tools.ietf.org/api/idnits?url=https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-roll-dao-projection-30.txt

Result:    Summary: 3 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 5 warnings (==), 1 comment (--).

    (See RFCs 3967 and 4897 for information about using normative references
    to lower-maturity documents in RFCs)

  ** Downref: Normative reference to an Informational RFC: RFC 4655

  ** Downref: Normative reference to an Informational RFC: RFC 9030

  == Outdated reference: A later version (-11) exists of
    draft-ietf-raw-architecture-10

  ** Downref: Normative reference to an Informational draft:
    draft-ietf-raw-architecture (ref. 'RAW-ARCHI')

15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the [IESG
    Statement on Normative and Informative References][16].
From AD comment:
RFC4655, as used, can be an Informational reference.
RFC9030 has been used before as a downref, so there won’t be an issue using it as Normative.
For raw-architecture draft, it is understood that as used can be an Information Reference

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

The normative references comprise IETF documents.

17. Are there any normative downward references (see [RFC 3967][9] and [BCP
    97][10]) that are not already listed in the [DOWNREF registry][17]? If so,
    list them.
No

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?

draft-ietf-raw-architecture-10: work in progress. From RAW Charter it was aimed to be finished on May 2022

19. Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? If
    so, does the Datatracker metadata correctly reflect this and are those RFCs
    listed on the title page, in the abstract, and discussed in the
    introduction? If not, explain why and point to the part of the document
    where the relationship of this document to these other RFCs is discussed.

The status of other RFCs are not changed. However, this document updates RFC 6550, RFC 6553, and RFC 8138. The explanation of these updates are included in the document in Section 4.

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][11]).


IANA Requests are made correctly, just some nits mentioned below.

This document includes 16 IANA Considerations requests:
1. RPL DODAG Configuration Option Flag
2. Elective 6LoWPAN Routing Header Type: nits addressed in the github file
3. Critical 6LoWPAN Routing Header Type: nits addressed in the github file
4. Registry For The RPL Option Flags
5. RPL Control Codes
6. RPL Control Message Options
7. SubRegistry for the Projected DAO Request Flags
8. SubRegistry for the PDR-ACK Flags
9. Registry for the PDR-ACK Acceptance Status Values
10. Registry for the PDR-ACK Rejection Status Values
11. SubRegistry for the Via Information Options Flags
12. SubRegistry for the Sibling Information Option Flags
13. Destination Advertisement Object Flag
14. Destination Advertisement Object Acknowledgment Flag
15. New ICMPv6 Error Code: nits addressed in the github file
16. RPL Rejection Status values.: nits addressed in the github file

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.

[1]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/
[2]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4858.html
[3]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7942.html
[4]: https://trac.ietf.org/trac/ops/wiki/yang-review-tools
[5]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8342.html
[6]: https://trac.ietf.org/trac/iesg/wiki/ExpertTopics
[7]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp79
[8]: https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/
[9]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3967.html
[10]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp97
[11]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8126.html
[12]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-5
[13]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.1
[14]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.2
[15]: https://authors.ietf.org/en/content-guidelines-overview
[16]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/normative-informative-references/
[17]: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/downref/

Not applicable

----------------------------------------------------------------------
[Minor Issues-Nits] addressed in Github in version 31 https://github.com/roll-wg/dao-projection/commit/5225d2722b27e217e028b1ebf69eb21b17c60709

Section 11.2: "...under the heading "Routing Protocol for Low Power and Lossy Networks (RPL)", should it be " ..under the heading "IPv6 Low Power Personal Area Network Parameters".." based on
https://www.iana.org/assignments/_6lowpan-parameters/_6lowpan-parameters.xhtml#elective-6lowpan-routing-header-type

Same as section 11.3: "...under the heading "Routing Protocol for Low Power and Lossy Networks (RPL)", should it be " ..under the heading "IPv6 Low Power Personal Area Network Parameters".." based on
https://www.iana.org/assignments/_6lowpan-parameters/_6lowpan-parameters.xhtml#critical-6lowpan-routing-header-type

Section 11.15:

1- ..ICMPv6 Code Fields Registry --> ICMPv6 "Code" Fields Registry
2- ICMPv6 Message Type 1 --> ICMPv6 Message Type 1 "Destination Unreachable" ?
3- The code 8 is already assigned to "Headers too long" [ RFC8883], but I think IANA can assign another code number

Section 11.16: Statuss --> Status

# Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents

Document: draft-ietf-roll-dao-projection-30
Shepherd: Ines Robles
Date: 4.1.2023
AD: Alvaro Retana

Thank you for your service as a document shepherd. Among the responsibilities is
answering the questions in this write-up to give helpful context to Last Call
and Internet Engineering Steering Group ([IESG][1]) reviewers, and your
diligence in completing it is appreciated. The full role of the shepherd is
further described in [RFC 4858][2]. You will need the cooperation of the authors
and editors to complete these checks.

Note that some numbered items contain multiple related questions; please be sure
to answer all of them.

## 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?

The WGLC last for long time, during this time we got approval from some members and also its reviews, but for the last versions including the correction of the reviews, members were silent, no rejection gotten.

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

No, concerns were discussed in interim meetings and IETF meetings, issues were addressed.

3. Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If
  so, please summarize 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

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][3] recommends) or elsewhere
  (where)?

No implementation known. Students presented interest to implement in near future.

## 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.
The document aims for RPL protocol, no immediate dependency in other WGs. Although, terminology was corrected to align with RAW working group (RAW architecture). Also, this work will be useful for 6tisch implementations.

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.

Not applicable for this document

7. If the document contains a YANG module, has the final version of the module
  been checked with any of the [recommended validation tools][4] 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][5]?
Not applicable for this document

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.
Not applicable for this document

## 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?

The document is clearly written.

Minor issues were found in the shepherd review that were addressed by the authors in version 31.

Still some minor issues/nits are present in version 31 (no reported in version 30). These minor issues were addressed in the github version: https://github.com/roll-wg/dao-projection/commit/5225d2722b27e217e028b1ebf69eb21b17c60709 (Listed below in this document as well, in the section [Minor Issues-Nits])

10. Several IETF Areas have assembled [lists of common issues that their
    reviewers encounter][6]. For which areas have such issues been identified
    and addressed? For which does this still need to happen in subsequent
    reviews?

Issues addressed were mainly for routing area.

11. What type of RFC publication is being requested on the IETF stream ([Best
    Current Practice][12], [Proposed Standard, Internet Standard][13],
    [Informational, Experimental or Historic][14])? Why is this the proper type
    of RFC? Do all Datatracker state attributes correctly reflect this intent?

Intended Status: Standards Track
This specification introduces protocol extensions that enrich the topological information available to the Root with sibling relationships to enable a RPL Root to install and maintain Projected Routes within its DODAG for a chosen duration.

12. Have reasonable efforts been made to remind all authors of the intellectual
    property rights (IPR) disclosure obligations described in [BCP 79][7]? 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.

This document has associted two IPRs:

1. https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/2620/
2. https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/2620/

The authors confirm that there are no additional IPRs than the one mentioned above:
- Pascal Thubert provided IPR confirmation of version 30 on December 2022
- Rahul Jahav provided IPR confirmation on version 30 on December 2022
- Michael Richardson provided IPR confirmation on October 2022 of version 21

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.

Yes, the authors accepted to be listed as such.

14. Document any remaining I-D nits in this document. Simply running the [idnits
    tool][8] is not enough; please review the ["Content Guidelines" on
    authors.ietf.org][15]. (Also note that the current idnits tool generates
    some incorrect warnings; a rewrite is underway.)

From idnits check: https://author-tools.ietf.org/api/idnits?url=https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-roll-dao-projection-30.txt

Result:    Summary: 3 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 5 warnings (==), 1 comment (--).

    (See RFCs 3967 and 4897 for information about using normative references
    to lower-maturity documents in RFCs)

  ** Downref: Normative reference to an Informational RFC: RFC 4655

  ** Downref: Normative reference to an Informational RFC: RFC 9030

  == Outdated reference: A later version (-11) exists of
    draft-ietf-raw-architecture-10

  ** Downref: Normative reference to an Informational draft:
    draft-ietf-raw-architecture (ref. 'RAW-ARCHI')

15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the [IESG
    Statement on Normative and Informative References][16].
From AD comment:
RFC4655, as used, can be an Informational reference.
RFC9030 has been used before as a downref, so there won’t be an issue using it as Normative.
For raw-architecture draft, it is understood that as used can be an Information Reference

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

The normative references comprise IETF documents.

17. Are there any normative downward references (see [RFC 3967][9] and [BCP
    97][10]) that are not already listed in the [DOWNREF registry][17]? If so,
    list them.
No

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?

draft-ietf-raw-architecture-10: work in progress. From RAW Charter it was aimed to be finished on May 2022

19. Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? If
    so, does the Datatracker metadata correctly reflect this and are those RFCs
    listed on the title page, in the abstract, and discussed in the
    introduction? If not, explain why and point to the part of the document
    where the relationship of this document to these other RFCs is discussed.

The status of other RFCs are not changed. However, this document updates RFC 6550, RFC 6553, and RFC 8138. The explanation of these updates are included in the document in Section 4.

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][11]).


IANA Requests are made correctly, just some nits mentioned below.

This document includes 16 IANA Considerations requests:
1. RPL DODAG Configuration Option Flag
2. Elective 6LoWPAN Routing Header Type: nits addressed in the github file
3. Critical 6LoWPAN Routing Header Type: nits addressed in the github file
4. Registry For The RPL Option Flags
5. RPL Control Codes
6. RPL Control Message Options
7. SubRegistry for the Projected DAO Request Flags
8. SubRegistry for the PDR-ACK Flags
9. Registry for the PDR-ACK Acceptance Status Values
10. Registry for the PDR-ACK Rejection Status Values
11. SubRegistry for the Via Information Options Flags
12. SubRegistry for the Sibling Information Option Flags
13. Destination Advertisement Object Flag
14. Destination Advertisement Object Acknowledgment Flag
15. New ICMPv6 Error Code: nits addressed in the github file
16. RPL Rejection Status values.: nits addressed in the github file

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.

[1]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/
[2]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4858.html
[3]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7942.html
[4]: https://trac.ietf.org/trac/ops/wiki/yang-review-tools
[5]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8342.html
[6]: https://trac.ietf.org/trac/iesg/wiki/ExpertTopics
[7]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp79
[8]: https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/
[9]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3967.html
[10]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp97
[11]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8126.html
[12]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-5
[13]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.1
[14]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.2
[15]: https://authors.ietf.org/en/content-guidelines-overview
[16]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/normative-informative-references/
[17]: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/downref/

Not applicable

----------------------------------------------------------------------
[Minor Issues-Nits] addressed in Github

Section 11.2: "...under the heading "Routing Protocol for Low Power and Lossy Networks (RPL)", should it be " ..under the heading "IPv6 Low Power Personal Area Network Parameters".." based on
https://www.iana.org/assignments/_6lowpan-parameters/_6lowpan-parameters.xhtml#elective-6lowpan-routing-header-type

Same as section 11.3: "...under the heading "Routing Protocol for Low Power and Lossy Networks (RPL)", should it be " ..under the heading "IPv6 Low Power Personal Area Network Parameters".." based on
https://www.iana.org/assignments/_6lowpan-parameters/_6lowpan-parameters.xhtml#critical-6lowpan-routing-header-type

Section 11.15:

1- ..ICMPv6 Code Fields Registry --> ICMPv6 "Code" Fields Registry
2- ICMPv6 Message Type 1 --> ICMPv6 Message Type 1 "Destination Unreachable" ?
3- The code 8 is already assigned to "Headers too long" [ RFC8883], but I think IANA can assign another code number

Section 11.16: Statuss --> Status

# Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents

Document: draft-ietf-roll-dao-projection-30
Shepherd: Ines Robles
Date: 4.1.2023
AD: Alvaro Retana

Thank you for your service as a document shepherd. Among the responsibilities is
answering the questions in this write-up to give helpful context to Last Call
and Internet Engineering Steering Group ([IESG][1]) reviewers, and your
diligence in completing it is appreciated. The full role of the shepherd is
further described in [RFC 4858][2]. You will need the cooperation of the authors
and editors to complete these checks.

Note that some numbered items contain multiple related questions; please be sure
to answer all of them.

## 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?

The WGLC last for long time, during this time we got approval from some members and also its reviews, but for the last versions including the correction of the reviews, members were silent, no rejection gotten.

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

No, concerns were discussed in interim meetings and IETF meetings, issues were addressed.

3. Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If
  so, please summarize 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

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][3] recommends) or elsewhere
  (where)?

No implementation known. Students presented interest to implement in near future.

## 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.
The document aims for RPL protocol, no immediate dependency in other WGs. Although, terminology was corrected to align with RAW working group (RAW architecture). Also, this work will be useful for 6tisch implementations.

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.

Not applicable for this document

7. If the document contains a YANG module, has the final version of the module
  been checked with any of the [recommended validation tools][4] 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][5]?
Not applicable for this document

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.
Not applicable for this document

## 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?

The document is clearly written.

Minor issues were found in the shepherd review that were addressed by the authors in version 31.

Still some minor issues/nits are present in version 31. These minor issues were addressed in the github version: https://github.com/roll-wg/dao-projection/commit/5225d2722b27e217e028b1ebf69eb21b17c60709 (Listed below in this document as well, in the section [Minor Issues-Nits])

10. Several IETF Areas have assembled [lists of common issues that their
    reviewers encounter][6]. For which areas have such issues been identified
    and addressed? For which does this still need to happen in subsequent
    reviews?

Issues addressed were mainly for routing area.

11. What type of RFC publication is being requested on the IETF stream ([Best
    Current Practice][12], [Proposed Standard, Internet Standard][13],
    [Informational, Experimental or Historic][14])? Why is this the proper type
    of RFC? Do all Datatracker state attributes correctly reflect this intent?

Intended Status: Standards Track
This specification introduces protocol extensions that enrich the topological information available to the Root with sibling relationships to enable a RPL Root to install and maintain Projected Routes within its DODAG for a chosen duration.

12. Have reasonable efforts been made to remind all authors of the intellectual
    property rights (IPR) disclosure obligations described in [BCP 79][7]? 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.

This document has associted two IPRs:

1. https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/2620/
2. https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/2620/

The authors confirm that there are no additional IPRs than the one mentioned above:
- Pascal Thubert provided IPR confirmation of version 30 on December 2022
- Rahul Jahav provided IPR confirmation on version 30 on December 2022
- Michael Richardson provided IPR confirmation on October 2022 of version 21

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.

Yes, the authors accepted to be listed as such.

14. Document any remaining I-D nits in this document. Simply running the [idnits
    tool][8] is not enough; please review the ["Content Guidelines" on
    authors.ietf.org][15]. (Also note that the current idnits tool generates
    some incorrect warnings; a rewrite is underway.)

From idnits check: https://author-tools.ietf.org/api/idnits?url=https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-roll-dao-projection-30.txt

Result:    Summary: 3 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 5 warnings (==), 1 comment (--).

    (See RFCs 3967 and 4897 for information about using normative references
    to lower-maturity documents in RFCs)

  ** Downref: Normative reference to an Informational RFC: RFC 4655

  ** Downref: Normative reference to an Informational RFC: RFC 9030

  == Outdated reference: A later version (-11) exists of
    draft-ietf-raw-architecture-10

  ** Downref: Normative reference to an Informational draft:
    draft-ietf-raw-architecture (ref. 'RAW-ARCHI')

15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the [IESG
    Statement on Normative and Informative References][16].
From AD comment:
RFC4655, as used, can be an Informational reference.
RFC9030 has been used before as a downref, so there won’t be an issue using it as Normative.
For raw-architecture draft, it is understood that as used can be an Information Reference

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

The normative references comprise IETF documents.

17. Are there any normative downward references (see [RFC 3967][9] and [BCP
    97][10]) that are not already listed in the [DOWNREF registry][17]? If so,
    list them.
No

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?

draft-ietf-raw-architecture-10: work in progress. From RAW Charter it was aimed to be finished on May 2022

19. Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? If
    so, does the Datatracker metadata correctly reflect this and are those RFCs
    listed on the title page, in the abstract, and discussed in the
    introduction? If not, explain why and point to the part of the document
    where the relationship of this document to these other RFCs is discussed.

The status of other RFCs are not changed. However, this document updates RFC 6550, RFC 6553, and RFC 8138. The explanation of these updates are included in the document in Section 4.

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][11]).


IANA Requests are made correctly, just some nits mentioned below.

This document includes 16 IANA Considerations requests:
1. RPL DODAG Configuration Option Flag
2. Elective 6LoWPAN Routing Header Type: nits addressed in the github file
3. Critical 6LoWPAN Routing Header Type: nits addressed in the github file
4. Registry For The RPL Option Flags
5. RPL Control Codes
6. RPL Control Message Options
7. SubRegistry for the Projected DAO Request Flags
8. SubRegistry for the PDR-ACK Flags
9. Registry for the PDR-ACK Acceptance Status Values
10. Registry for the PDR-ACK Rejection Status Values
11. SubRegistry for the Via Information Options Flags
12. SubRegistry for the Sibling Information Option Flags
13. Destination Advertisement Object Flag
14. Destination Advertisement Object Acknowledgment Flag
15. New ICMPv6 Error Code: nits addressed in the github file
16. RPL Rejection Status values.: nits addressed in the github file

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.

[1]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/
[2]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4858.html
[3]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7942.html
[4]: https://trac.ietf.org/trac/ops/wiki/yang-review-tools
[5]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8342.html
[6]: https://trac.ietf.org/trac/iesg/wiki/ExpertTopics
[7]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp79
[8]: https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/
[9]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3967.html
[10]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp97
[11]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8126.html
[12]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-5
[13]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.1
[14]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.2
[15]: https://authors.ietf.org/en/content-guidelines-overview
[16]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/normative-informative-references/
[17]: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/downref/

Not applicable

----------------------------------------------------------------------
[Minor Issues-Nits] addressed in Github

Section 11.2: "...under the heading "Routing Protocol for Low Power and Lossy Networks (RPL)", should it be " ..under the heading "IPv6 Low Power Personal Area Network Parameters".." based on
https://www.iana.org/assignments/_6lowpan-parameters/_6lowpan-parameters.xhtml#elective-6lowpan-routing-header-type

Same as section 11.3: "...under the heading "Routing Protocol for Low Power and Lossy Networks (RPL)", should it be " ..under the heading "IPv6 Low Power Personal Area Network Parameters".." based on
https://www.iana.org/assignments/_6lowpan-parameters/_6lowpan-parameters.xhtml#critical-6lowpan-routing-header-type

Section 11.15:

1- ..ICMPv6 Code Fields Registry --> ICMPv6 "Code" Fields Registry
2- ICMPv6 Message Type 1 --> ICMPv6 Message Type 1 "Destination Unreachable" ?
3- The code 8 is already assigned to "Headers too long" [ RFC8883], but I think IANA can assign another code number

Section 11.16: Statuss --> Status

# Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents

Document: draft-ietf-roll-dao-projection-30
Shepherd: Ines Robles
Date: 4.1.2023
AD: Alvaro Retana

Thank you for your service as a document shepherd. Among the responsibilities is
answering the questions in this write-up to give helpful context to Last Call
and Internet Engineering Steering Group ([IESG][1]) reviewers, and your
diligence in completing it is appreciated. The full role of the shepherd is
further described in [RFC 4858][2]. You will need the cooperation of the authors
and editors to complete these checks.

Note that some numbered items contain multiple related questions; please be sure
to answer all of them.

## 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?

The WGLC last for long time, during this time we got approval from some members and also its reviews, but for the last versions including the correction of the reviews, members were silent, no rejection gotten.

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

No, concerns were discussed in interim meetings and IETF meetings, issues were addressed.

3. Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If
  so, please summarize 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

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][3] recommends) or elsewhere
  (where)?

No implementation known. Students presented interest to implement in near future.

## 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.
The document aims for RPL protocol, no immediate dependency in other WGs. Although, terminology was corrected to align with RAW working group (RAW architecture). Also, this work will be useful for 6tisch implementations.

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.

Not applicable for this document

7. If the document contains a YANG module, has the final version of the module
  been checked with any of the [recommended validation tools][4] 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][5]?
Not applicable for this document

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.
Not applicable for this document

## 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?

The document is clearly written.

Minor issues were found in the shepherd review that were addressed by the authors in version 31.

Still some minor issues/nits are present in version 31, not detected in version 30. These minor issues were addressed in the github version: https://github.com/roll-wg/dao-projection/commit/5225d2722b27e217e028b1ebf69eb21b17c60709 (Listed below in this document as well, in the section [Minor Issues-Nits])

10. Several IETF Areas have assembled [lists of common issues that their
    reviewers encounter][6]. For which areas have such issues been identified
    and addressed? For which does this still need to happen in subsequent
    reviews?

Issues addressed were mainly for routing area.

11. What type of RFC publication is being requested on the IETF stream ([Best
    Current Practice][12], [Proposed Standard, Internet Standard][13],
    [Informational, Experimental or Historic][14])? Why is this the proper type
    of RFC? Do all Datatracker state attributes correctly reflect this intent?

Intended Status: Standards Track
This specification introduces protocol extensions that enrich the topological information available to the Root with sibling relationships to enable a RPL Root to install and maintain Projected Routes within its DODAG for a chosen duration.

12. Have reasonable efforts been made to remind all authors of the intellectual
    property rights (IPR) disclosure obligations described in [BCP 79][7]? 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.

This document has associted two IPRs:

1. https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/2620/
2. https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/2620/

The authors confirm that there are no additional IPRs than the one mentioned above:
- Pascal Thubert provided IPR confirmation of version 30 on December 2022
- Rahul Jahav provided IPR confirmation on version 30 on December 2022
- Michael Richardson provided IPR confirmation on October 2022 of version 21

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.

Yes, the authors accepted to be listed as such.

14. Document any remaining I-D nits in this document. Simply running the [idnits
    tool][8] is not enough; please review the ["Content Guidelines" on
    authors.ietf.org][15]. (Also note that the current idnits tool generates
    some incorrect warnings; a rewrite is underway.)

From idnits check: https://author-tools.ietf.org/api/idnits?url=https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-roll-dao-projection-30.txt

Result:    Summary: 3 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 5 warnings (==), 1 comment (--).

    (See RFCs 3967 and 4897 for information about using normative references
    to lower-maturity documents in RFCs)

  ** Downref: Normative reference to an Informational RFC: RFC 4655

  ** Downref: Normative reference to an Informational RFC: RFC 9030

  == Outdated reference: A later version (-11) exists of
    draft-ietf-raw-architecture-10

  ** Downref: Normative reference to an Informational draft:
    draft-ietf-raw-architecture (ref. 'RAW-ARCHI')

15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the [IESG
    Statement on Normative and Informative References][16].
From AD comment:
RFC4655, as used, can be an Informational reference.
RFC9030 has been used before as a downref, so there won’t be an issue using it as Normative.
For raw-architecture draft, it is understood that as used can be an Information Reference

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

The normative references comprise IETF documents.

17. Are there any normative downward references (see [RFC 3967][9] and [BCP
    97][10]) that are not already listed in the [DOWNREF registry][17]? If so,
    list them.
No

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?

draft-ietf-raw-architecture-10: work in progress. From RAW Charter it was aimed to be finished on May 2022

19. Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? If
    so, does the Datatracker metadata correctly reflect this and are those RFCs
    listed on the title page, in the abstract, and discussed in the
    introduction? If not, explain why and point to the part of the document
    where the relationship of this document to these other RFCs is discussed.

The status of other RFCs are not changed. However, this document updates RFC 6550, RFC 6553, and RFC 8138. The explanation of these updates are included in the document in Section 4.

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][11]).


IANA Requests are made correctly, just some nits mentioned below.

This document includes 16 IANA Considerations requests:
1. RPL DODAG Configuration Option Flag
2. Elective 6LoWPAN Routing Header Type: nits addressed in the github file
3. Critical 6LoWPAN Routing Header Type: nits addressed in the github file
4. Registry For The RPL Option Flags
5. RPL Control Codes
6. RPL Control Message Options
7. SubRegistry for the Projected DAO Request Flags
8. SubRegistry for the PDR-ACK Flags
9. Registry for the PDR-ACK Acceptance Status Values
10. Registry for the PDR-ACK Rejection Status Values
11. SubRegistry for the Via Information Options Flags
12. SubRegistry for the Sibling Information Option Flags
13. Destination Advertisement Object Flag
14. Destination Advertisement Object Acknowledgment Flag
15. New ICMPv6 Error Code: nits addressed in the github file
16. RPL Rejection Status values.: nits addressed in the github file

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.

[1]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/
[2]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4858.html
[3]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7942.html
[4]: https://trac.ietf.org/trac/ops/wiki/yang-review-tools
[5]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8342.html
[6]: https://trac.ietf.org/trac/iesg/wiki/ExpertTopics
[7]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp79
[8]: https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/
[9]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3967.html
[10]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp97
[11]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8126.html
[12]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-5
[13]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.1
[14]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.2
[15]: https://authors.ietf.org/en/content-guidelines-overview
[16]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/normative-informative-references/
[17]: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/downref/

Not applicable

----------------------------------------------------------------------
[Minor Issues-Nits] addressed in Github

Section 11.2: "...under the heading "Routing Protocol for Low Power and Lossy Networks (RPL)", should it be " ..under the heading "IPv6 Low Power Personal Area Network Parameters".." based on
https://www.iana.org/assignments/_6lowpan-parameters/_6lowpan-parameters.xhtml#elective-6lowpan-routing-header-type

Same as section 11.3: "...under the heading "Routing Protocol for Low Power and Lossy Networks (RPL)", should it be " ..under the heading "IPv6 Low Power Personal Area Network Parameters".." based on
https://www.iana.org/assignments/_6lowpan-parameters/_6lowpan-parameters.xhtml#critical-6lowpan-routing-header-type

Section 11.15:

1- ..ICMPv6 Code Fields Registry --> ICMPv6 "Code" Fields Registry
2- ICMPv6 Message Type 1 --> ICMPv6 Message Type 1 "Destination Unreachable" ?
3- The code 8 is already assigned to "Headers too long" [ RFC8883], but I think IANA can assign another code number

Section 11.16: Statuss --> Status

# Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents

Document: draft-ietf-roll-dao-projection-30
Shepherd: Ines Robles
Date: 4.1.2023
AD: Alvaro Retana

Thank you for your service as a document shepherd. Among the responsibilities is
answering the questions in this write-up to give helpful context to Last Call
and Internet Engineering Steering Group ([IESG][1]) reviewers, and your
diligence in completing it is appreciated. The full role of the shepherd is
further described in [RFC 4858][2]. You will need the cooperation of the authors
and editors to complete these checks.

Note that some numbered items contain multiple related questions; please be sure
to answer all of them.

## 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?

The WGLC last for long time, during this time we got approval from some members and also its reviews, but for the last versions including the correction of the reviews, members were silent, no rejection gotten.

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

No, concerns were discussed in interim meetings and IETF meetings, issues were addressed.

3. Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If
  so, please summarize 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

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][3] recommends) or elsewhere
  (where)?

No implementation known. Students presented interest to implement in near future.

## 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.
The document aims for RPL protocol, no inmediate dependency in other WGs. Although, terminology was corrected to align with RAW working group (RAW architecture). Also, this work will be useful for 6tisch implementations.

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.

Not applicable for this document

7. If the document contains a YANG module, has the final version of the module
  been checked with any of the [recommended validation tools][4] 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][5]?
Not applicable for this document

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.
Not applicable for this document

## 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?

The document is clearly written. Minor comments below for the authors in [Minor Issues-Nits] section. These minor issues were addressed in the github version
https://github.com/roll-wg/dao-projection/commit/5225d2722b27e217e028b1ebf69eb21b17c60709

10. Several IETF Areas have assembled [lists of common issues that their
    reviewers encounter][6]. For which areas have such issues been identified
    and addressed? For which does this still need to happen in subsequent
    reviews?

Issues addressed were mainly for routing area.

11. What type of RFC publication is being requested on the IETF stream ([Best
    Current Practice][12], [Proposed Standard, Internet Standard][13],
    [Informational, Experimental or Historic][14])? Why is this the proper type
    of RFC? Do all Datatracker state attributes correctly reflect this intent?

Intended Status: Standards Track
This specification introduces protocol extensions that enrich the topological information available to the Root with sibling relationships to enable a RPL Root to install and maintain Projected Routes within its DODAG for a chosen duration.

12. Have reasonable efforts been made to remind all authors of the intellectual
    property rights (IPR) disclosure obligations described in [BCP 79][7]? 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.

This document has associted two IPRs:

1. https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/2620/
2. https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/2620/

The authors confirm that there are no additional IPRs than the one mentioned above:
- Pascal Thubert provided IPR confirmation of version 30 on December 2022
- Rahul Jahav provided IPR confirmation on version 30 on December 2022
- Michael Richardson provided IPR confirmation on October 2022 of version 21

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.

Yes, the authors accepted to be listed as such.

14. Document any remaining I-D nits in this document. Simply running the [idnits
    tool][8] is not enough; please review the ["Content Guidelines" on
    authors.ietf.org][15]. (Also note that the current idnits tool generates
    some incorrect warnings; a rewrite is underway.)

From idnits check: https://author-tools.ietf.org/api/idnits?url=https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-roll-dao-projection-30.txt

Result:    Summary: 3 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 5 warnings (==), 1 comment (--).

    (See RFCs 3967 and 4897 for information about using normative references
    to lower-maturity documents in RFCs)

  ** Downref: Normative reference to an Informational RFC: RFC 4655

  ** Downref: Normative reference to an Informational RFC: RFC 9030

  == Outdated reference: A later version (-11) exists of
    draft-ietf-raw-architecture-10

  ** Downref: Normative reference to an Informational draft:
    draft-ietf-raw-architecture (ref. 'RAW-ARCHI')

15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the [IESG
    Statement on Normative and Informative References][16].
From AD comment:
RFC4655, as used, can be an Informational reference.
RFC9030 has been used before as a downref, so there won’t be an issue using it as Normative.
For raw-architecture draft, it is understood that as used can be an Information Reference

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

The normative references comprise IETF documents.

17. Are there any normative downward references (see [RFC 3967][9] and [BCP
    97][10]) that are not already listed in the [DOWNREF registry][17]? If so,
    list them.
No

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?

draft-ietf-raw-architecture-10: work in progress. From RAW Charter it was aimed to be finished on May 2022

19. Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? If
    so, does the Datatracker metadata correctly reflect this and are those RFCs
    listed on the title page, in the abstract, and discussed in the
    introduction? If not, explain why and point to the part of the document
    where the relationship of this document to these other RFCs is discussed.

The status of other RFCs are not changed. However, this document updates RFC 6550, RFC 6553, and RFC 8138. The explanation of these updates are included in the document in Section 4.

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][11]).


IANA Requests are made correctly, just some nits mentioned below.

This document includes 16 IANA Considerations requests:
1. RPL DODAG Configuration Option Flag
2. Elective 6LoWPAN Routing Header Type: nits addressed in the github file
3. Critical 6LoWPAN Routing Header Type: nits addressed in the github file
4. Registry For The RPL Option Flags
5. RPL Control Codes
6. RPL Control Message Options
7. SubRegistry for the Projected DAO Request Flags
8. SubRegistry for the PDR-ACK Flags
9. Registry for the PDR-ACK Acceptance Status Values
10. Registry for the PDR-ACK Rejection Status Values
11. SubRegistry for the Via Information Options Flags
12. SubRegistry for the Sibling Information Option Flags
13. Destination Advertisement Object Flag
14. Destination Advertisement Object Acknowledgment Flag
15. New ICMPv6 Error Code: nits addressed in the github file
16. RPL Rejection Status values.: nits addressed in the github file

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.

[1]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/
[2]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4858.html
[3]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7942.html
[4]: https://trac.ietf.org/trac/ops/wiki/yang-review-tools
[5]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8342.html
[6]: https://trac.ietf.org/trac/iesg/wiki/ExpertTopics
[7]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp79
[8]: https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/
[9]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3967.html
[10]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp97
[11]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8126.html
[12]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-5
[13]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.1
[14]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.2
[15]: https://authors.ietf.org/en/content-guidelines-overview
[16]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/normative-informative-references/
[17]: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/downref/

Not applicable

----------------------------------------------------------------------
[Minor Issues-Nits] addressed in Github

Section 11.2: "...under the heading "Routing Protocol for Low Power and Lossy Networks (RPL)", should it be " ..under the heading "IPv6 Low Power Personal Area Network Parameters".." based on
https://www.iana.org/assignments/_6lowpan-parameters/_6lowpan-parameters.xhtml#elective-6lowpan-routing-header-type

Same as section 11.3: "...under the heading "Routing Protocol for Low Power and Lossy Networks (RPL)", should it be " ..under the heading "IPv6 Low Power Personal Area Network Parameters".." based on
https://www.iana.org/assignments/_6lowpan-parameters/_6lowpan-parameters.xhtml#critical-6lowpan-routing-header-type

Section 11.15:

1- ..ICMPv6 Code Fields Registry --> ICMPv6 "Code" Fields Registry
2- ICMPv6 Message Type 1 --> ICMPv6 Message Type 1 "Destination Unreachable" ?
3- The code 8 is already assigned to "Headers too long" [ RFC8883], but I think IANA can assign another code number

Section 11.16: Statuss --> Status

# Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents

Document: draft-ietf-roll-dao-projection-30
Shepherd: Ines Robles
Date: 30.12.2022
AD: Alvaro Retana

*This version is dated 4 July 2022.*

Thank you for your service as a document shepherd. Among the responsibilities is
answering the questions in this write-up to give helpful context to Last Call
and Internet Engineering Steering Group ([IESG][1]) reviewers, and your
diligence in completing it is appreciated. The full role of the shepherd is
further described in [RFC 4858][2]. You will need the cooperation of the authors
and editors to complete these checks.

Note that some numbered items contain multiple related questions; please be sure
to answer all of them.

## 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?

The WGLC last for long time, during this time we got approval from some members and also its reviews, but for the last versions including the correction of the reviews, members were silent, no rejection gotten.

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

No, concerns were discussed in interim meetings and IETF meetings, issues were addressed.

3. Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If
  so, please summarize 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

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][3] recommends) or elsewhere
  (where)?

No implementation known. Students presented interest to implement in near future.

## 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.
The document aims for RPL protocol, no inmediate dependency in other WGs. Although, terminology was corrected to align with RAW working group (RAW architecture). Also, this work will be useful for 6tisch implementations.

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.

Not applicable for this document

7. If the document contains a YANG module, has the final version of the module
  been checked with any of the [recommended validation tools][4] 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][5]?
Not applicable for this document

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.
Not applicable for this document

## 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?

The document is clearly written. Minor comments below for the author in [Minor Issues-Nits] section. After the authors address these, can be handed off to the Area Director.

10. Several IETF Areas have assembled [lists of common issues that their
    reviewers encounter][6]. For which areas have such issues been identified
    and addressed? For which does this still need to happen in subsequent
    reviews?

Issues addressed were mainly for routing area.

11. What type of RFC publication is being requested on the IETF stream ([Best
    Current Practice][12], [Proposed Standard, Internet Standard][13],
    [Informational, Experimental or Historic][14])? Why is this the proper type
    of RFC? Do all Datatracker state attributes correctly reflect this intent?

Intended Status: Standards Track
This specification introduces protocol extensions that enrich the topological information available to the Root with sibling relationships to enable a RPL Root to install and maintain Projected Routes within its DODAG for a chosen duration.

12. Have reasonable efforts been made to remind all authors of the intellectual
    property rights (IPR) disclosure obligations described in [BCP 79][7]? 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.

This document has associted two IPRs:

1. https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/2620/
2. https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/2620/

The authors confirm that there are no additional IPRs than the one mentioned above:
- Pascal Thubert provided IPR confirmation of version 30 on December 2022
- Rahul Jahav provided IPR confirmation on September 2022 of version 19
- Michael Richardson provided IPR confirmation on October 2022 of version 21

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.

Yes, the authors accepted to be listed as such.

14. Document any remaining I-D nits in this document. Simply running the [idnits
    tool][8] is not enough; please review the ["Content Guidelines" on
    authors.ietf.org][15]. (Also note that the current idnits tool generates
    some incorrect warnings; a rewrite is underway.)

From idnits check: https://author-tools.ietf.org/api/idnits?url=https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-roll-dao-projection-30.txt

Result:    Summary: 3 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 5 warnings (==), 1 comment (--).

    (See RFCs 3967 and 4897 for information about using normative references
    to lower-maturity documents in RFCs)

  ** Downref: Normative reference to an Informational RFC: RFC 4655

  ** Downref: Normative reference to an Informational RFC: RFC 9030

  == Outdated reference: A later version (-11) exists of
    draft-ietf-raw-architecture-10

  ** Downref: Normative reference to an Informational draft:
    draft-ietf-raw-architecture (ref. 'RAW-ARCHI')

15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the [IESG
    Statement on Normative and Informative References][16].


  ** Downref: Normative reference to an Informational RFC: RFC 4655
  ** Downref: Normative reference to an Informational RFC: RFC 9030
  ** Downref: Normative reference to an Informational draft:
    draft-ietf-raw-architecture (ref. 'RAW-ARCHI')

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

The normative references comprise IETF documents.

17. Are there any normative downward references (see [RFC 3967][9] and [BCP
    97][10]) that are not already listed in the [DOWNREF registry][17]? If so,
    list them.
No

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?

draft-ietf-raw-architecture-10: work in progress. From RAW Charter it was aimed to be finished on May 2022

19. Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? If
    so, does the Datatracker metadata correctly reflect this and are those RFCs
    listed on the title page, in the abstract, and discussed in the
    introduction? If not, explain why and point to the part of the document
    where the relationship of this document to these other RFCs is discussed.

The status of other RFCs are not changed. However, this document updates RFC 6550, RFC 6553, and RFC 8138. The explanation of these updates are included in the document in Section 4.

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][11]).


IANA Requests are made correctly, just some nits mentioned below.

This document includes 16 IANA Considerations requests:
1. RPL DODAG Configuration Option Flag
2. Elective 6LoWPAN Routing Header Type
3. Critical 6LoWPAN Routing Header Type
4. Registry For The RPL Option Flags
5. RPL Control Codes
6. RPL Control Message Options
7. SubRegistry for the Projected DAO Request Flags
8. SubRegistry for the PDR-ACK Flags
9. Registry for the PDR-ACK Acceptance Status Values
10. Registry for the PDR-ACK Rejection Status Values
11. SubRegistry for the Via Information Options Flags
12. SubRegistry for the Sibling Information Option Flags
13. Destination Advertisement Object Flag
14. Destination Advertisement Object Acknowledgment Flag
15. New ICMPv6 Error Code
16. RPL Rejection Status values

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.

[1]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/
[2]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4858.html
[3]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7942.html
[4]: https://trac.ietf.org/trac/ops/wiki/yang-review-tools
[5]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8342.html
[6]: https://trac.ietf.org/trac/iesg/wiki/ExpertTopics
[7]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp79
[8]: https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/
[9]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3967.html
[10]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp97
[11]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8126.html
[12]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-5
[13]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.1
[14]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.2
[15]: https://authors.ietf.org/en/content-guidelines-overview
[16]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/normative-informative-references/
[17]: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/downref/

Not applicable

----------------------------------------------------------------------
[Minor Issues-Nits] for the authors

1-Section 2.4.5.1 states "A RPL Local Instance ID", based on section 4.1.1 trackID definition includes global as well, thus TrackID in section 2.4.5.1 should it be "A RPL Local (or Global) Instance ID ...?"

2- Section 2.4.5.3 states: "A Track that has only one path", should it be: "A Track that has only one path from Ingress to Egress?"

3- Section 2.4.5.8.1: The segment example, could it be formulated based on Figure 1 or Figure 6? If so, could the figure number be added into brackets for better understanding of the reader.

4- In Section 3.5.1.1 reads: "Packets originated by A to F ....", should it be " Data Packets originated by A to F ...?"

5- Section 3.5.2.3:

5.1: "are sent A" --> "are sent to A"

5.2: Table 16. Column P-DAO 1 to C, row Targets. It is empty, is that Ok, or should it be "E"?

6- Section 3.6: the sentence "...and Inter-Leg Segments (aka North-South), such as Segment 2 above which joins Leg 1 and Leg 2..."

6.1: Should it be Segment 5 instead of 2? (Segment 5 is North-South?)

6.2: Or it is Segment 2 and both legs 1 and 2 are joined by node "E"?

6.3: Segment 5 is composed only by nodes "B" and "H", right?

7- Section 4.1: "as usual" --> "as specified in RFC6550" ?

8- Section 4.1.1: "...The 'P' flag is encoded in bit position 2 (to be confirmed by IANA)..." It would be nice to point the IANA Section where it belongs, e.g. "...The 'P' flag is encoded in bit position 2 (IANA Request section 11.13 or Table 31)..."

9- Section 4.1.2: Same as above for "1-bit flag (position to be confirmed by IANA)", for IANA Section 11.14/Table 32

10- Section 5.3:

10.1- Figure 16: "Type" --> "Option Type"

10.2- In The Field descriptions, the description of the "Flags" field is missing. It would be nice to add 1 sentence about the flags.

10.2.1- Is this flags field related to the IANA Request of Section 11.11? If so, please add it into the description.

11-Section 5.4: it reads "...An industrial Alliance that uses RPL for a particular use / environment MAY redefine the use of this field to fit its needs..." It would be nice to adapt it to include wider scenarios/use cases. For e.g. "In some scenarios such as the case of an Industrial Alliances that uses RPL for a particular use / environment MAY redefine the use of this field to fit its needs..."

12- Section 6.4.2: Figure 18, It would be nice to mark in the Figure the Ingress and the Egress as in Figure 19.

13- Section 11.11, reads "No bit is currently assigned for the PDR-ACK Flags." --> "No bit is currently assigned for the VIO Flags." ?