Root initiated routing state in RPL
draft-ietf-roll-dao-projection-34

# 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." ?