Shepherd writeup
draft-ietf-core-cocoa

## Shepherd Writeup

###Summary

* Document Shepherd: Jaime Jiménez, <jaime.jimenez@ericsson.com>
* Area Director: Mirja Kuehlewind <ietf@kuehlewind.net>

The CoAP protocol needs to be implemented in such a way that it does
not cause persistent congestion on the network it uses.  The CoRE
CoAP specification defines basic behavior that exhibits low risk of
congestion with minimal implementation requirements.  It also leaves
room for combining the base specification with advanced congestion
control mechanisms with higher performance.

This specification defines more advanced, but still simple CoRE
Congestion Control mechanisms, called CoCoA.  The core of these
mechanisms is a Retransmission TimeOut (RTO) algorithm that makes use
of Round-Trip Time (RTT) estimates, in contrast with how the RTO is
determined as per the base CoAP specification (RFC 7252).  The
mechanisms defined in this document have relatively low complexity,
yet they improve the default CoAP RTO algorithm.  The design of the
mechanisms in this specification has made use of input from
simulations and experiments in real networks.

The document is intended as Informational, as it provides an optimisation of
the existing CoAP congestion control mechanism with a Retransmission TimeOut
(RTO) algorithm based on RTT estimation.

###Review and Consensus

The document has gone through multiple expert reviews and has been discussed on
multiple IETF meetings. Before the last IETF the WGLC was completed.

###Intellectual Property

Each author has stated that they do not have direct, personal knowledge of any
IPR related to this document. I am not aware of any IPR discussion about this
document on the CoRE WG.

###Other Points
There are RFC Editor comments that need to be edited out.
This document makes no requirements on IANA.

###Checklist

* [x] Does the shepherd stand behind the document and think the document is
ready for publication? * [x] Is the correct RFC type indicated in the title
page header? * [x] Is the abstract both brief and sufficient, and does it stand
alone as a brief summary? * [x] Is the intent of the document accurately and
adequately explained in the introduction? * [x] Have all required formal
reviews (MIB Doctor, Media Type, URI, etc.) been requested and/or completed? *
[x] Has the shepherd performed automated checks -- idnits (see
http://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts Checklist), checks of
BNF rules, XML code and schemas, MIB definitions, and so on -- and determined
that the document passes the tests? * [x] Has each author stated that their
direct, personal knowledge of any IPR related to this document has already been
disclosed, in conformance with BCPs 78 and 79? * [x] Have all references within
this document been identified as either normative or informative, and does the
shepherd agree with how they have been classified? * [x] Are all normative
references made to documents that are ready for advancement and are otherwise
in a clear state? * [x] If publication of this document changes the status of
any existing RFCs, are those RFCs listed on the title page header, and are the
changes listed in the abstract and discussed (explained, not just mentioned) in
the introduction? `Does not apply` * [x] If this is a "bis" document, have all
of the errata been considered? `Does not apply`

* **IANA** Considerations: `There are no requirements on IANA`

        * [x] Are the IANA Considerations clear and complete? Remember that
        IANA have to understand unambiguously what's being requested, so they
        can perform the required actions. * [x] Are all protocol extensions
        that the document makes associated with the appropriate reservations in
        IANA registries? * [x] Are all IANA registries referred to by their
        exact names (check them in http://www.iana.org/protocols/ to be sure)?
        * [x] Have you checked that any registrations made by this document
        correctly follow the policies and procedures for the appropriate
        registries? * [x] For registrations that require expert review
        (policies of Expert Review or Specification Required), have you or the
        working group had any early review done, to make sure the requests are
        ready for last call? * [x] For any new registries that this document
        creates, has the working group actively chosen the allocation
        procedures and policies and discussed the alternatives? * [x] Have
        reasonable registry names been chosen (that will not be confused with
        those of other registries), and have the initial contents and valid
        value ranges been clearly specified?

Back