Shepherd writeup
rfc7650-10

PROTO Write up for draft-jimenez-p2psip-coap-reload-07

(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?

  Proposed standard, as indicated on the front page of the draft.

(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 defines a Constrained Application Protocol (CoAP)
  Usage for REsource LOcation And Discovery (RELOAD).  The CoAP Usage
  provides the functionality to federate Wireless Sensor Networks
  (WSN) in a peer-to-peer fashion.  The CoAP Usage for RELOAD allows
  CoAP nodes to store resources in a RELOAD peer-to-peer overlay,
  provides a lookup service, and enables the use of RELOAD overlay as
  a cache for sensor data.  This functionality is implemented in the
  RELOAD overlay itself, without the use of centralized servers.  The
  RELOAD AppAttach method is used to establish a direct connection
  between nodes through which CoAP messages are exchanged.

Working Group Summary

  The mechanism specified in this draft is directly related to two
  protocols: CoAP and RELOAD. Therefore, the draft was discussed in
  both the CORE and the P2PSIP WGs. The draft was presented in the
  face-to-face session of the P2PSIP WG at IETF 83. It was decided to
  progress it as an AD sponsored document. As part of that process,
  dedicated reviewers from both communities were assigned to the draft
  so that the draft was reviewed from both points of view before its
  publication was requested.

Document Quality

  At least Ericsson has an implementation of the draft using an older
  version of RELOAD. There have been academic papers published
  describing parts of that implementation. Other parties have shown
  interest in implementing it as well once the RFC is published.

Personnel

  Carlos Jesus Bernardos is the document shepherd.
  Richard Barnes is the responsible area director.

(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 has reviewed version 07 of the draft and
  believes it is ready for publication request.

(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or
breadth of the reviews that have been performed?

  No. The document has been discussed in both the CoAP and the RELOAD
  community. Additionally, Cullen Jennings (from the RELOAD community)
  and Matthias Kovatsch (from the CoAP) community performed dedicated
  reviews on the DISPATCH WG mailing list.

(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 further reviews are needed at this point.

(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 interested
community 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.

(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If
so, summarize any discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR
disclosures.

  One IPR disclosure was filed in 2012 and is available in the ID
  tracker. Nobody has expressed any concerns about it.

(9) How solid is the consensus of the interested community behind this
document? Does it represent the strong concurrence of a few
individuals, with others being silent, or does the interested
community as a whole understand and agree with it?

  This document represents the consensus of the intersection of the
  CoAP and RELOAD communities. They are individuals working on the
  machine-to-machine area (especially with sensors) in distributed
  contexts where RELOAD's capabilities can resolve some of the issues
  they face.

(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.)

  No.

(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.

  The document passes ID nits.

(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review
criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.

  No normal reviews are needed.

(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.

(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.

  No.

(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 interested community considers it
unnecessary.

  No.

(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).

  The IANA considerations section is consistent with the body of the
  document.

(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.

  None.

(19) Describe reviews and automated checks performed by to validate
sections of the document written in a formal language, such as XML
code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc.

  No such checks are needed. The draft contains definitions of data
  structures but all of them are fairly simple.
Back