Q> (1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard,
Q> Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? Why is
Q> this the proper type of RFC? Is this type of RFC indicated in the
Q> title page header?
Q> (2) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document Announcement
Q> Write-Up. Please provide such a Document Announcement Write-Up. Recent
Q> examples can be found in the "Action" announcements for approved
Q> documents. The approval announcement contains the following sections:
Q> Technical Summary:
Low power And Lossy Networks (LLN) are used in a wide scope of
application areas, including industrial monitoring, building
automation (e.g. Heating, Ventilating, Air Conditioning, lighting,
access control, fire), connected home, healthcare, environmental
monitoring, urban sensor networks, energy management, assets
tracking, refrigeration. The documents defines a set of common terminology.
Q> Working Group Summary:
No concerns, the document had good support.
Q> Document Quality:
There was good support in the working group towards getting the definitions
precise enough to be useful, but not overly specific.
Q> Who is the Document Shepherd? Who is the Responsible Area Director?
Document Shepherd: Michael Richardson <email@example.com>
Responsible AD: Adrian Farrel <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Q> (3) Briefly describe the review of this document that was performed by
Q> the Document Shepherd. If this version of the document is not ready
Q> for publication, please explain why the document is being forwarded to
Q> the IESG.
A WGLC for the document was issued and a number of definitions were adjusted.
This document should have been published at the same time as RFC6550 but fell
by the wayside.
Q> (4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or
Q> breadth of the reviews that have been performed?
Q> (5) Do portions of the document need review from a particular or from
Q> broader perspective, e.g., security, operational complexity, AAA, DNS,
Q> DHCP, XML, or internationalization? If so, describe the review that
Q> took place.
Q> (6) Describe any specific concerns or issues that the Document
Q> Shepherd has with this document that the Responsible Area Director
Q> and/or the IESG should be aware of? For example, perhaps he or she is
Q> uncomfortable with certain parts of the document, or has concerns
Q> whether there really is a need for it. In any event, if the WG has
Q> discussed those issues and has indicated that it still wishes to
Q> advance the document, detail those concerns here.
Q> (7) Has each author confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR
Q> disclosures required for full conformance with the provisions of BCP
Q> 78 and BCP 79 have already been filed. If not, explain why?
Q> (8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If
Q> so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR
Q> (9) How solid is the WG consensus behind this document? Does it
Q> represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others
Q> being silent, or does the WG as a whole understand and agree with it?
The document was forgotten and revived, and so recent discussion does not
reflect historical involvement. When questions were asked, the WG responded
favourable, and was able to quickly come to consensus on the changes.
Q> (10) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme
Q> discontent? If so, please summarise the areas of conflict in separate
Q> email messages to the Responsible Area Director. (It should be in a
Q> separate email because this questionnaire is publicly available.)
Q> (11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this
Q> document. (See http://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the
Q> Internet-Drafts Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this
Q> check needs to be thorough.
Q> (12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review
Q> criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.
Q> (13) Have all references within this document been identified as
Q> either normative or informative?
Q> (14) Are there normative references to documents that are not ready
Q> for advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state? If such
Q> normative references exist, what is the plan for their completion?
Q> (15) Are there downward normative references references (see RFC
Q> 3967)? If so, list these downward references to support the Area
Q> Director in the Last Call procedure.
Q> (16) Will publication of this document change the status of any
Q> existing RFCs? Are those RFCs listed on the title page header, listed
Q> in the abstract, and discussed in the introduction? If the RFCs are
Q> not listed in the Abstract and Introduction, explain why, and point to
Q> the part of the document where the relationship of this document to
Q> the other RFCs is discussed. If this information is not in the
Q> document, explain why the WG considers it unnecessary.
Q> (17) Describe the Document Shepherd's review of the IANA
Q> considerations section, especially with regard to its consistency with
Q> the body of the document. Confirm that all protocol extensions that
Q> the document makes are associated with the appropriate reservations in
Q> IANA registries. Confirm that any referenced IANA registries have been
Q> clearly identified. Confirm that newly created IANA registries include
Q> a detailed specification of the initial contents for the registry,
Q> that allocations procedures for future registrations are defined, and
Q> a reasonable name for the new registry has been suggested (see RFC
No IANA considerations.
Q> (18) List any new IANA registries that require Expert Review for
Q> future allocations. Provide any public guidance that the IESG would
Q> find useful in selecting the IANA Experts for these new registries.
Q> (19) Describe reviews and automated checks performed by the Document
Q> Shepherd to validate sections of the document written in a formal
Q> language, such as
Q> XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc.