# 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/].