RNFD: Fast border router crash detection in RPL
draft-ietf-roll-rnfd-07

[Ballot comment]
Thanks for working on this specification. I am balloting no objection but would emphasis to respond to the TSVART review by Mirja, thanks Mirja for a good review.
That review has similar observations as mine. On top of those observations - I would like to know a bit more about the "Care" part on not to overload the Root. Are we talking about some rate control on the probe or is it about a circuit breaker to stop overloading? We need more guidance here.

[Ballot comment]
# Gunter Van de Velde, RTG AD, comments for draft-ietf-roll-rnfd-06

# The line numbers used are rendered from IETF idnits tool: https://author-tools.ietf.org/api/idnits?url=https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-roll-rnfd-06.txt

# for your convenience, please find some non-blocking COMMENTS

# The idnits tool for draft-ietf-roll-rnfd-06 does give some errors. I assume that these were known to the authors.


# DISCUSS
# =======



# comments
# ========

7             RNFD: Fast border router crash detection in RPL

GV> do you want to call this 'crash'? there could be many reasons for a border router to no longer responds.
Within the document there are many instances of the word crash used.
Would it be correct to say 'failure' instead of crash as a more accurate description?

s/crash/failure/

Gunter Van de Velde
RTG Area Director

[Ballot comment]
"Abstract", paragraph 1
>    By and large, a correct operation of a RPL network requires border
>    routers to be up.  In many applications, it is beneficial for the
>    nodes to detect a crash of a border router as soon as possible to
>    trigger fallback actions.  This document describes RNFD, an extension
>    to RPL that expedites border router failure detection, even by an
>    order of magnitude, by having nodes collaboratively monitor the
>    status of a given border router.  The extension introduces an
>    additional state at each node, a new type of RPL Control Message
>    Options for synchronizing this state among different nodes, and the
>    coordination algorithm itself.


Please expand RPL and RNFD on first use. The expansion of RNFD does not come till Section 1.2.

Section 6, paragraph 1
>    RNFD is largely self-managed, with the exception of protocol
>    activation and deactivation, as well as node role assignment and the
>    related CFRC size adjustment, for which only the aforementioned
>    mechanisms are defined, so as to enable adopting deployment-specific
>    policies.  This section outlines some of the possible policies.

My thanks to Peter Van der Stok for performing an IOTDIR review. Peter points out that the network configuration is not clear. By its own admission, the document accepts that the protocol needs to be activated/deactivated. If there is an assumption that the configuration considerations flow from RFC 6550, Section 18.2, that needs to be called out explicitly. The same is true for monitoring and Section 18.3 of RFC 6550.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NIT
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

All comments below are about very minor potential issues that you may choose to
address in some way - or ignore - as you see fit. Some were flagged by
automated tools (via https://github.com/larseggert/ietf-reviewtool), so there
will likely be some false positives. There is no need to let me know what you
did with these suggestions.

Section 1, paragraph 2
> des to which the node has links) those ones that are closer to the LBR than t
>                                  ^^^^^^^^^^
In formal contexts, "those" is sufficient.

Section 1.2, paragraph 6
> lled virtual DODAG roots can help tolerating some failures of individual LBRs
>                                  ^^^^^^^^^^
The verb "help" is used with an infinitive.

[Ballot comment]

# Éric Vyncke, INT AD, comments for draft-ietf-roll-rnfd-06
CC @evyncke

Thank you for the work put into this document.

Please find below some non-blocking COMMENT points (but replies would be appreciated even if only for my own education), and one nit.

Special thanks to Michael Richardson for the shepherd's detailed write-up including the WG consensus *but* it lacks the justification of the intended status, especially for such an important update to RPL.

As indicated in the shepherd's write-up, I am puzzled by the lack of email for WGLC even if the history clearly indicates that the WGLC was requested in the datatracker

Other thanks to Peter Van der Stok, the IoT directorate reviewer (at my request), please consider this iot-dir review:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/review-ietf-roll-rnfd-05-iotdir-telechat-van-der-stok-2025-02-14/ (and I have read Konrad's reply)

I hope that this review helps to improve the document,

Regards,

-éric


## DISCUSS (blocking)

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

###

## COMMENTS (non-blocking)

### Abstract

Same as Mahesh, please expand RNFD in the abstract (and possibly in the title).

s/This document describes RNFD/This document specifies RNFD/

Unsure whether `even by an order of magnitude` should be in the abstract, it is a little 'marketing' ;-)

### Section 1

Please expand RPL at first use.

### Section 3

English is not my primary language but I wonder whether the use of "Therefore" is correct in `LBRs are DODAG roots in RPL, and hence a crash of an LBR is global in that it affects all nodes in the corresponding DODAG. Therefore, each node running RNFD for a given DODAG explicitly tracks the DODAG root’s current condition`

`it must be done by the root’s neighbors` seems to imply that all neighbors are sentinel... suggest using "can only be done".

s/A Sentinel node is *the* DODAG root’s neighbor /A Sentinel node is *a* DODAG root’s neighbor /

I also wonder whether detecting a root crash by its links health is a valid assumption, I could imagine case where the root is not more working to build the DODAG but its links are still up.

### Sections 4.1 & 4.2

At first sight, it seems that the text about the operations (value, zero, ...) is duplicated.

### Section 6.1

No need to reply, but I am slightly concerned that good operations of RNFD relies on some manual configurations and I am unsure whether all LLN can be manually configured.

### Section 6.2

Should this rater be a "MUST" in `it is RECOMMENDED to issue a new DODAG Version` ? I.e., to provide more stability.

## NITS (non-blocking / cosmetic)

### Use of SVG graphics

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

[Ballot comment]
"Abstract", paragraph 1
>    By and large, a correct operation of a RPL network requires border
>    routers to be up.  In many applications, it is beneficial for the
>    nodes to detect a crash of a border router as soon as possible to
>    trigger fallback actions.  This document describes RNFD, an extension
>    to RPL that expedites border router failure detection, even by an
>    order of magnitude, by having nodes collaboratively monitor the
>    status of a given border router.  The extension introduces an
>    additional state at each node, a new type of RPL Control Message
>    Options for synchronizing this state among different nodes, and the
>    coordination algorithm itself.


Please expand RPL and RNFD on first use. The expansion of RNFD does not come till Section 1.2.

Section 6, paragraph 1
>    RNFD is largely self-managed, with the exception of protocol
>    activation and deactivation, as well as node role assignment and the
>    related CFRC size adjustment, for which only the aforementioned
>    mechanisms are defined, so as to enable adopting deployment-specific
>    policies.  This section outlines some of the possible policies.

My thanks to Peter Van der Stok for performing an IOTDIR review. Peter points out that the network configuration is not clear. By its own admission, the document accepts that the protocol needs to be activated/deactivated. If there is an assumption that the configuration considerations flow from RFC 6550, Section 18.2, that needs to be called out explicitly. The same is true for monitoring and Section 18.3 of RFC 6550.

Found terminology that should be reviewed for inclusivity; see
https://www.rfc-editor.org/part2/#inclusive_language for background and more
guidance:

* Term "master"; alternatives might be "active", "central", "initiator",
  "leader", "main", "orchestrator", "parent", "primary", "server"

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NIT
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

All comments below are about very minor potential issues that you may choose to
address in some way - or ignore - as you see fit. Some were flagged by
automated tools (via https://github.com/larseggert/ietf-reviewtool), so there
will likely be some false positives. There is no need to let me know what you
did with these suggestions.

Section 1, paragraph 2
> des to which the node has links) those ones that are closer to the LBR than t
>                                  ^^^^^^^^^^
In formal contexts, "those" is sufficient.

Section 1.2, paragraph 6
> lled virtual DODAG roots can help tolerating some failures of individual LBRs
>                                  ^^^^^^^^^^
The verb "help" is used with an infinitive.

Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents
This version is dated 4 July 2022.

The WGLC for RNFD was announced and minuted (
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/minutes-interim-2024-roll-03-202405221400/),
but the formal announcement email was not sent or was not delivered to the
WG mailing list. However, the WG was aware of the document’s progression,
as evidenced by the “Publication Requested” email (
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/roll/UbkorB6wD3eKwj2mPZtwFB1sBsE/)
and prior discussions.

Once this issue was discovered, the WG was notified (
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/roll/z-gn_pCwX3QuFeQ-M0zH6g4e6QI/)
and given the opportunity to raise any concerns during the IETF Last Call.
No concerns were raised by WG participants (to be confirmed after the IETF
LC concludes). Given this, the chairs, AD, and shepherd believe that the WG
has consensus to publish.

>Document History
>Does the working group (WG) consensus represent the strong concurrence of a
>few individuals, with others being silent, or did it reach broad agreement?
>
>Was there controversy about particular points, or were there decisions where
>the consensus was particularly rough?

The document was not extensively reviewed (by numbers), as the ROLL WG only
has about seven active members.  The document came from a new contributor,
and was well received and reviewed by the small community.

Consensus was not rough.

>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 appeals or threats of appeal.

>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 recommends) or elsewhere
>(where)?

The authors have done an implementation.

>Additional Reviews
>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.

There are no specific IETF WGs that need to review.

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

None of these apply.

>If the document contains a YANG module, has the final version of the module
>been checked with any of the recommended validation tools for syntax and
>formatting validation? If there are any resulting errors or warnings, what is
>the justification for not fixing them at this time? Does the YANG module
>comply with the Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA) as specified
>in RFC 8342?

No YANG module.

>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.

None required.

>Document Shepherd Checks
>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 deals with a specific need that has been observed from field
deployments of RFC6550.  It likely has applicability to RFC8994 as well.

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

No common issues.

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

Proposed Standard

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

>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.

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

No nits

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

Looks good to me.

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

There are none.

>Are there any normative downward references (see RFC 3967 and BCP
>97) that are not already listed in the DOWNREF registry? If so,
>list them.

none.

>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?

None.

> Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs?

No.

> Describe the document shepherd's review of the IANA considerations section,
> especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the document.

One allocation is made, and it looks correct.

> 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.

No new registries.

IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

IANA has completed its review of draft-ietf-roll-rnfd-05. If any part of this review is inaccurate, please let us know.

IANA understands that, upon approval of this document, there is a single action which we must complete.

In the RPL Control Message Options registry on the Routing Protocol for Low Power and Lossy Networks (RPL) registry page located at:

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

a single, new registration will be made as follows:

Value: [ TBD-at-Registration ]
Meaning: RNFD Option
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

We understand that this is the only action required to be completed upon approval of this document.

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

For definitions of IANA review states, please see:

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

Thank you,

David Dong
IANA Services Sr. Specialist

Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents
This version is dated 4 July 2022.

NOTE: The WGLC was announced and minuted
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/minutes-interim-2024-roll-03-202405221400/
  at the May 22 interim, but the announcement email wasn’t sent or wasn't
  delivered to the WG mailing list.
  Nonetheless the WG did know about the document’s progression (e.g. due to
  the “Publication Requested” email
  https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/roll/UbkorB6wD3eKwj2mPZtwFB1sBsE/ ).
  When the issue was discovered, the situation was rectified.

>Document History
>Does the working group (WG) consensus represent the strong concurrence of a
>few individuals, with others being silent, or did it reach broad agreement?
>
>Was there controversy about particular points, or were there decisions where
>the consensus was particularly rough?

The document was not extensively reviewed (by numbers), as the ROLL WG only
has about seven active members.  The document came from a new contributor,
and was well received and reviewed by the small community.

Consensus was not rough.

>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 appeals or threats of appeal.

>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 recommends) or elsewhere
>(where)?

The authors have done an implementation.

>Additional Reviews
>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.

There are no specific IETF WGs that need to review.

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

None of these apply.

>If the document contains a YANG module, has the final version of the module
>been checked with any of the recommended validation tools for syntax and
>formatting validation? If there are any resulting errors or warnings, what is
>the justification for not fixing them at this time? Does the YANG module
>comply with the Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA) as specified
>in RFC 8342?

No YANG module.

>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.

None required.

>Document Shepherd Checks
>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 deals with a specific need that has been observed from field
deployments of RFC6550.  It likely has applicability to RFC8994 as well.

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

No common issues.

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

To be clarified.

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

>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.

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

No nits

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

Looks good to me.

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

There are none.

>Are there any normative downward references (see RFC 3967 and BCP
>97) that are not already listed in the DOWNREF registry? If so,
>list them.

none.

>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?

None.

> Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs?

No.

> Describe the document shepherd's review of the IANA considerations section,
> especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the document.

One allocation is made, and it looks correct.

> 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.

No new registries.

Comment by co-chairs (on 2024-09-13): This Write-up still applies to the latest version (v4) of the draft.

Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents
This version is dated 4 July 2022.

>Document History
>Does the working group (WG) consensus represent the strong concurrence of a
>few individuals, with others being silent, or did it reach broad agreement?
>
>Was there controversy about particular points, or were there decisions where
>the consensus was particularly rough?

The document was not extensively reviewed (by numbers), as the ROLL WG only
has about seven active members.  The document came from a new contributor,
and was well received and reviewed by the small community.

Consensus was not rough.

>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 appeals or threats of appeal.

>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 recommends) or elsewhere
>(where)?

>Additional Reviews
>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.

There are no specific IETF WGs that need to review.

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

None of these apply.

>If the document contains a YANG module, has the final version of the module
>been checked with any of the recommended validation tools for syntax and
>formatting validation? If there are any resulting errors or warnings, what is
>the justification for not fixing them at this time? Does the YANG module
>comply with the Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA) as specified
>in RFC 8342?

No YANG module.

>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.

None required.

>Document Shepherd Checks
>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 deals with a specific need that has been observed from field
deployments of RFC6550.  It likely has applicability to RFC8994 as well.

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

No common issues.

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

Experimental.

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

>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.

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

No nits

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

Looks good to me.

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

There are none.

>Are there any normative downward references (see RFC 3967 and BCP
>97) that are not already listed in the DOWNREF registry? If so,
>list them.

none.

>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?

None.

> Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs?

No.

> Describe the document shepherd's review of the IANA considerations section,
> especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the document.

One allocation is made, and it looks correct.

> 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.

No new registries.

Comment by co-chairs (on 2024-09-13): This Write-up still applies to the latest version (v4) of the draft.

Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents
This version is dated 4 July 2022.

>Document History
>Does the working group (WG) consensus represent the strong concurrence of a
>few individuals, with others being silent, or did it reach broad agreement?
>
>Was there controversy about particular points, or were there decisions where
>the consensus was particularly rough?

The document was not extensively reviewed (by numbers), as the ROLL WG only
has about seven active members.  The document came from a new contributor,
and was well received and reviewed by the small community.

Consensus was not rough.

>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 appeals or threats of appeal.

>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 recommends) or elsewhere
>(where)?

>Additional Reviews
>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.

There are no specific IETF WGs that need to review.

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

None of these apply.

>If the document contains a YANG module, has the final version of the module
>been checked with any of the recommended validation tools for syntax and
>formatting validation? If there are any resulting errors or warnings, what is
>the justification for not fixing them at this time? Does the YANG module
>comply with the Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA) as specified
>in RFC 8342?

No YANG module.

>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.

None required.

>Document Shepherd Checks
>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 deals with a specific need that has been observed from field
deployments of RFC6550.  It likely has applicability to RFC8994 as well.

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

No common issues.

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

Experimental.

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

>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.

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

No nits

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

Looks good to me.

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

There are none.

>Are there any normative downward references (see RFC 3967 and BCP
>97) that are not already listed in the DOWNREF registry? If so,
>list them.

none.

>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?

None.

> Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs?

No.

> Describe the document shepherd's review of the IANA considerations section,
> especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the document.

One allocation is made, and it looks correct.

> 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.

No new registries.

-- Added by Ines Robles on 5th February 2025 ---

The WGLC for RNFD was announced and minuted (https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/minutes-interim-2024-roll-03-202405221400/), but the formal announcement email was not sent or was not delivered to the WG mailing list. However, the WG was aware of the document’s progression, as evidenced by the “Publication Requested” email (https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/roll/UbkorB6wD3eKwj2mPZtwFB1sBsE/) and prior discussions.

Once this issue was discovered, the WG was notified (https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/roll/z-gn_pCwX3QuFeQ-M0zH6g4e6QI/) and given the opportunity to raise any concerns during the IETF Last Call. No concerns were raised by WG participants (to be confirmed after the IETF LC concludes). Given this, the chairs, AD, and shepherd believe that the WG has consensus to publish.

The following Last Call announcement was sent out (ends 2025-02-17):

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC: draft-ietf-roll-rnfd@ietf.org, jgs@juniper.net, mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca, roll-chairs@ietf.org, roll@ietf.org
Reply-To: last-call@ietf.org
Sender:
Subject: Last Call:  (RNFD: Fast border router crash detection in RPL) to Proposed Standard


The IESG has received a request from the Routing Over Low power and Lossy
networks WG (roll) to consider the following document: - 'RNFD: Fast border
router crash detection in RPL'
  as Proposed Standard

The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits final
comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the
last-call@ietf.org mailing lists by 2025-02-17. Exceptionally, comments may
be sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the beginning
of the Subject line to allow automated sorting.

Abstract


  By and large, a correct operation of a RPL network requires border
  routers to be up.  In many applications, it is beneficial for the
  nodes to detect a crash of a border router as soon as possible to
  trigger fallback actions.  This document describes RNFD, an extension
  to RPL that expedites border router failure detection, even by an
  order of magnitude, by having nodes collaboratively monitor the
  status of a given border router.  The extension introduces an
  additional state at each node, a new type of RPL Control Message
  Options for synchronizing this state among different nodes, and the
  coordination algorithm itself.




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



No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D.

Comment by co-chairs (on 2024-09-13): This Write-up still applies to the latest version (v4) of the draft.

Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents
This version is dated 4 July 2022.

>Document History
>Does the working group (WG) consensus represent the strong concurrence of a
>few individuals, with others being silent, or did it reach broad agreement?
>
>Was there controversy about particular points, or were there decisions where
>the consensus was particularly rough?

The document was not extensively reviewed (by numbers), as the ROLL WG only
has about seven active members.  The document came from a new contributor,
and was well received and reviewed by the small community.

Consensus was not rough.

>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 appeals or threats of appeal.

>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 recommends) or elsewhere
>(where)?

>Additional Reviews
>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.

There are no specific IETF WGs that need to review.

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

None of these apply.

>If the document contains a YANG module, has the final version of the module
>been checked with any of the recommended validation tools for syntax and
>formatting validation? If there are any resulting errors or warnings, what is
>the justification for not fixing them at this time? Does the YANG module
>comply with the Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA) as specified
>in RFC 8342?

No YANG module.

>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.

None required.

>Document Shepherd Checks
>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 deals with a specific need that has been observed from field
deployments of RFC6550.  It likely has applicability to RFC8994 as well.

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

No common issues.

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

Experimental.

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

>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.

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

No nits

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

Looks good to me.

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

There are none.

>Are there any normative downward references (see RFC 3967 and BCP
>97) that are not already listed in the DOWNREF registry? If so,
>list them.

none.

>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?

None.

> Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs?

No.

> Describe the document shepherd's review of the IANA considerations section,
> especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the document.

One allocation is made, and it looks correct.

> 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.

No new registries.

Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents
This version is dated 4 July 2022.

>Document History
>Does the working group (WG) consensus represent the strong concurrence of a
>few individuals, with others being silent, or did it reach broad agreement?
>
>Was there controversy about particular points, or were there decisions where
>the consensus was particularly rough?

The document was not extensively reviewed (by numbers), as the ROLL WG only
has about seven active members.  The document came from a new contributor,
and was well received and reviewed by the small community.

Consensus was not rough.

>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 appeals or threats of appeal.

>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 recommends) or elsewhere
>(where)?

>Additional Reviews
>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.

There are no specific IETF WGs that need to review.

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

None of these apply.

>If the document contains a YANG module, has the final version of the module
>been checked with any of the recommended validation tools for syntax and
>formatting validation? If there are any resulting errors or warnings, what is
>the justification for not fixing them at this time? Does the YANG module
>comply with the Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA) as specified
>in RFC 8342?

No YANG module.

>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.

None required.

>Document Shepherd Checks
>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 deals with a specific need that has been observed from field
deployments of RFC6550.  It likely has applicability to RFC8994 as well.

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

No common issues.

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

Experimental.

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

>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.

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

No nits

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

Looks good to me.

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

There are none.

>Are there any normative downward references (see RFC 3967 and BCP
>97) that are not already listed in the DOWNREF registry? If so,
>list them.

none.

>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?

None.

> Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs?

No.

> Describe the document shepherd's review of the IANA considerations section,
> especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the document.

One allocation is made, and it looks correct.

> 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.

No new registries.

Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents
This version is dated 4 July 2022.

>Document History
>Does the working group (WG) consensus represent the strong concurrence of a
>few individuals, with others being silent, or did it reach broad agreement?
>
>Was there controversy about particular points, or were there decisions where
>the consensus was particularly rough?

The document was not extensively reviewed (by numbers), as the ROLL WG only
has about seven active members.  The document came from a new contributor,
and was well received and reviewed by the small community.

Consensus was not rough.

>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 appeals or threats of appeal.

>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 recommends) or elsewhere
>(where)?

>Additional Reviews
>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.

There are no specific IETF WGs that need to review.

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

None of these apply.

>If the document contains a YANG module, has the final version of the module
>been checked with any of the recommended validation tools for syntax and
>formatting validation? If there are any resulting errors or warnings, what is
>the justification for not fixing them at this time? Does the YANG module
>comply with the Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA) as specified
>in RFC 8342?

No YANG module.

>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.

None required.

>Document Shepherd Checks
>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 deals with a specific need that has been observed from field
deployments of RFC6550.  It likely has applicability to RFC8994 as well.

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

No common issues.

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

Experimental.

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

>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.

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

No nits

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

Looks good to me.

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

There are none.

>Are there any normative downward references (see RFC 3967 and BCP
>97) that are not already listed in the DOWNREF registry? If so,
>list them.

none.

>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?

None.

> Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs?

No.

> Describe the document shepherd's review of the IANA considerations section,
> especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the document.

One allocation is made, and it looks correct.

> 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.

No new registries.