Shepherd write-up for draft-ietf-roll-turnon-rfc8138 - A RPL Configuration
Option for the 6LoWPAN Routing Header-
(1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard, Internet
Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? Why is this the proper
type of RFC? Is this type of RFC indicated in the title page header?
Intended status: Standards Track.
It presents a A RPL Configuration Option for the 6LoWPAN Routing Header
(2) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document Announcement Write-Up.
Please provide such a Document Announcement Write-Up. Recent examples can be
found in the "Action" announcements for approved documents. The approval
announcement contains the following sections:
Technical Summary:
This document complements [RFC8138] and dedicates a flag in the RPL
configuration option to indicate whether [RFC8138] compression should be used
within the RPL Instance. The setting of this new flag is controlled by the
Root and propagates as is in the whole network. When the bit is not set, source
nodes that support [RFC8138] should refrain from using the compression unless
the information is superseded by configuration.
Working Group Summary:
The document was discussed during the IETF 106 and adopted by the WG on Dec
11th 2019. The WG adoption was based on the following: "-There were positive
opinions, including from people who actively contribute to the writing of
drafts at ROLL and related WGs, and who contribute to developing or evaluating
their implementations. -There was one opposition, arguing that RFC8138 turn on
should be done another way. -There is no substantiated technical proposal on
the table other than draft-thubert-roll-turnon-rfc8138."
The document draft-ietf-roll-turnon-rfc8138-04 went on WG Last Call on February
20th 2020 and finished April 17th 2020 with version
draft-ietf-roll-turnon-rfc8138-07, during Last call issues raised and were
addressed by the authors.
Document Quality:
No current implementations were presented by the authors. The document improved
the quality with the reviews done during the Last Call. This document is needed
for the implementation of RFC8138.
Personnel:
Who is the Document Shepherd? Ines Robles
Who is the Responsible Area Director? Alvaro Retana
(3) Briefly describe the review of this document that was performed by the
Document Shepherd. If this version of the document is not ready for
publication, please explain why the document is being forwarded to the IESG.
The document shepherd reviewed the document and finds it ready for publication.
(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of
the reviews that have been performed? No
(5) Do portions of the document need review from a particular or from broader
perspective, e.g., security, operational complexity, AAA, DNS, DHCP, XML, or
internationalization? If so, describe the review that took place.
No
(6) Describe any specific concerns or issues that the Document Shepherd has
with this document that the Responsible Area Director and/or the IESG should be
aware of? For example, perhaps he or she is uncomfortable with certain parts of
the document, or has concerns whether there really is a need for it. In any
event, if the WG has discussed those issues and has indicated that it still
wishes to advance the document, detail those concerns here.
No concerns.
(7) Has each author confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR disclosures
required for full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79 have
already been filed. If not, explain why?
Yes: Pascal Thubert and Li Zhao confirmed not-be-aware of IPR on 26th March
2020.
(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If so,
summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures.
No IPR links to this draft.
(9) How solid is the WG consensus behind this document? Does it represent the
strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others being silent, or does the
WG as a whole understand and agree with it?
The WGLC was supported for few people, but those people are actively
contributing to the WG, developing and implementing ROLL protocols.
(10) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent?
If so, please summarise 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.)
There was one opposition during WG adoption call, arguing that RFC8138 turn on
should be done another way. However, there is no substantiated technical
proposal on the table other than draft-thubert-roll-turnon-rfc8138. There was
no opposition during WGLC.
(11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this document.
(See http://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts Checklist).
Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be thorough.
ran with https://www6.ietf.org/tools/idnits: Summary: 0 errors (**), 0 flaws
(~~), 0 warnings (==), 2 comments (--).
ran with
https://tools.ietf.org/idnits?url=https://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-roll-turnon-rfc8138-07.txt
Summary: 2 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 0 warnings (==), 2 comments (--).
** Downref: Normative reference to an Informational RFC: RFC 7102
** Downref: Normative reference to an Informational RFC: RFC 7228
(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such
as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.
Not apply.
(13) Have all references within this document been identified as either
normative or informative?
Yes.
(14) Are there normative references to documents that are not ready for
advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state? If such normative references
exist, what is the plan for their completion?
No. Both normative references no-yet-rfc draft-ietf-roll-useofrplinfo and
draft-ietf-roll-unaware-leaves are in the last call stages
(15) Are there downward normative references references (see RFC 3967)? If so,
list these downward references to support the Area Director in the Last Call
procedure.
- draft-ietf-roll-useofrplinfo: in last call stage
- draft-ietf-roll-unaware-leaves: : in last call stage
(16) Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs?
Are those RFCs listed on the title page header, listed in the abstract, and
discussed in the introduction? If the RFCs are not listed in the Abstract and
Introduction, explain why, and point to the part of the document where the
relationship of this document to the other RFCs is discussed. If this
information is not in the document, explain why the WG considers it unnecessary.
This draft updates RFC 6550 (addressed in Section 3 of the draft) and RFC8138
(addressed in Section 4 of the draft).
The abstract mentions explicitly that the document updates RFC6550 and RFC 8138.
(17) 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 protocol extensions that the document makes are
associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm that
any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm that newly
created IANA registries include a detailed specification of the initial
contents for the registry, that allocations procedures for future registrations
are defined, and a reasonable name for the new registry has been suggested (see
RFC 8126).
This specification updates the Registry for the "DODAG Configuration Option
Flags" that was created for [RFC6550]
-https://www.iana.org/assignments/rpl/rpl.xhtml#dodag-config-option-flags-
(18) List any new IANA registries that require Expert Review for future
allocations. Provide any public guidance that the IESG would find useful in
selecting the IANA Experts for these new registries.
No. This specification updates an existing Registry.
(19) Describe reviews and automated checks performed by the Document Shepherd
to validate sections of the document written in a formal language, such as XML
code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, YANG modules, etc.
Not apply
(20) If the document contains a YANG module, has the module been checked with
any of the recommended validation tools
(https://trac.ietf.org/trac/ops/wiki/yang-review-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
RFC8342?
Not apply