As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document
Shepherd Write-Up.
Changes are expected over time. This version is dated 24 February 2012.
(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?
Shepherd response: Proposed Standard.
The document enables reachability for RPL unaware 6LoWPAN hosts through RPL
network. It provides routing services to 6LoWPAN Hosts by defining procedures
for the Host to attach to a RPL aware node which in turn acts as point of
transit for the Host.
b. Why is this the proper type of RFC?
Rsp: 'Standards Track' document is needed to mandate and recommend certain
handling such as aspects of Neighbor Discovery, and the draft also extends
RFC6550 and RFC8505.
c. Is this type of RFC indicated in the title page header?
Rsp: Yes
(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:
Shepherd response:
Technical Summary
The document enables reachability for RPL unaware 6LoWPAN hosts through RPL
network. It provides routing services to 6LoWPAN Hosts by defining
procedures for the Host to attach to a RPL aware node which in turn acts as
point of transit for the Host.
Working Group Summary
Was there anything in WG process that is worth noting? For
example, was there controversy about particular points or
were there decisions where the consensus was particularly
rough?
Shepherd response:
This draft has been discussed in ROLL/6lo working group. The draft had an
impact on 6LoWPAN ND status field. The status field had to be resized to 6bits
from 8bits and this was conveyed to the 6lo working group and no objections
were raised.
With these reviews and discussions -15 is ready for IESG review.
My personal take as a shepherd/reviewer/WG participant is that the document
solves the problem it indicates to solve. I certainly believe there are
use-cases which will benefit from this work.
Document Quality
Are there existing implementations of the protocol? Have a
significant number of vendors indicated their plan to
implement the specification?
Shepherd response: There are currently NO implementations.
Are there any reviewers that
merit special mention as having done a thorough review,
e.g., one that resulted in important changes or a
conclusion that the document had no substantive issues?
Shepherd response:
Multiple reviews were done by Rahul Jadhav (shepherd) which resulted in 4
updates to this draft.
If there was a MIB Doctor, Media Type or other expert review,
what was its course (briefly)? In the case of a Media Type
review, on what date was the request posted?
Shepherd response: Not Applicable
Personnel
Document Shepherd: Rahul Jadhav
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.
Shepherd response:
I have reviewed the document and my comments were addressed in version -15 that I
think is ready for IESG review.
(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or
breadth of the reviews that have been performed?
Shepherd response: No concerns. I certainly believe that the document solves
the problem it indicates to solve. It is now possible for 6LNs not supporting
RPL to participate in the network using RPL mesh as a transit.
(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.
Shepherd response:
The document updates RFC8505 standardized in 6lo working group. ROLL chairs had
made a review-request on 6lo ML. No reviews were received from 6lo however 6lo
chairs had specifically replied positively about the ARO status value field
resize. 6lo AD had also FYIed IoT-Directorate for the changes and no objections
were raised.
(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.
Shepherd response: 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.
Shepherd response: All the authors have confirmed. There are no IPRs
disclosures in the context.
(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document?
If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR
disclosures.
Shepherd response: Yes, all the authors have explicitly made a disclosure.
There are no IPRs on the 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?
Shepherd response: Strong concurrence of few individuals with others being
silent, is the state I see.
(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.)
Shepherd response: No discontent raised by anyone.
(11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this
document. (See https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts
Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be
thorough.
Shepherd response: The idnits tools showed 1 warning and 2 comments.
== Outdated reference: A later version (-18) exists of
draft-ietf-roll-efficient-npdao-17
[Shepherd rsp: Not a problem]
Summary: 0 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 1 warning (==), 2 comments (--).
(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review
criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.
Shepherd response: Not Applicable
(13) Have all references within this document been identified as
either normative or informative?
Shepherd response: 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?
Shepherd response: None
(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.
Shepherd response: None
(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.
Shepherd response: 6550, 8505 will be updated and are mentioned in title page
header.
(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 5226).
Shepherd response: All the IANA considerations are appropriately handled.
(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.
Shepherd response: All the impacted registries are within 6lo and ROLL WG. 6lo
working group was consulted about the change and the 6lo chair (Carles)
indicated the support.
(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, etc.
Shepherd response: Not applicable as there are no formal language constructs in
the document.