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:
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bit is not set, source nodes that support [RFC8138] should refrain from using the compression unless the information is superseded by configuration.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.
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.
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?
(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.
(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.
(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.
(13) Have all references within this document been identified as either normative or informative?
(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.
(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?