Shepherd writeup

(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?

A. draft-ietf-6lo-6lobac-05 draft is a 'standards track' document. This intended status is indicated
in the document header. Since it is defining ipv6-over-foo adaptation layer, it is standard track.

(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:

   Master-Slave/Token-Passing (MS/TP) is a medium access control method
   for the RS-485 physical layer, which is used extensively in building
   automation networks.  This specification defines the frame format for
   transmission of IPv6 packets and the method of forming link-local and
   statelessly autoconfigured IPv6 addresses on MS/TP networks in the context
   of 6loWPAN specifications ( RFC4944, RFC6282, RFC6775). MS/TP devices are 
   typically based on low-cost microcontollers with limited processing power
   and memory and they form a constrained wired network. A brief overview of
   MS/TP is available in ANSI/ASHRE 135-2012 BACNET, Clause 9 (see below):

              American Society of Heating, Refrigerating, and Air-
              Conditioning Engineers, "BACnet - A Data Communication
              Protocol for Building Automation and Control Networks",
              ANSI/ASHRAE 135-2012 (Clause 9), March 2013.

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?

A. Due to the nature of MS/TP (wired constraiend network) deployment and its requirement on compressed header
format, the author expressed concerns over draft-ietf-6man-default-iids restrictions and suggestions for using
privacy addresses as default for link-local Ipv6 addresses.

Section 6 of the document addresses privacy while forming the forwardable IPv6 address.

Document Quality:

Are there existing implementations of the protocol? Have a significant number of vendors indicated their 
plan to implement the specification? 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? 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?


The document has been reviewed and discussed by many 6lo experts in the WG including Carsten Bormann,
 Dave Thaler, Samita Chakrabarti, Peter van Der Stock, James Woodyatt, Alex Petrescue, Geoff Mulligan, Don Sturek
 etc. - some on-line and some of them provided comments off-line. 

An implementation of lobac exists and they participated on a 6lo plugtest in Yokohama IETF94.
Since the document is closely co-ordinated with ASHER/BACNET Building networks SDO, it is assumed that many
other vendors will adopt the solution once it is a published RFC.

Who is the Document Shepherd? Who is the Responsible Area Director?
Document Shepherd: Samita Chakrabarti, Responsible Area Director: Suresh Krishnan

(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.

A. Document shepherd has reviewed the -05 version of the document. The document is ready for publication.

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

A. The document is well written with lots of explanation (even code) at the Appendix.

(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 

A. Not applicable.

(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.

A.  It has been reviewed by a number of WG members and the shepherd. It is ready to advance.

 A note to the Area Director: One of teh co-author's email address ( is currently bouncing emails. The document
 editor Kerry Lynn has been informed about the issue.The recommendation to the editor is to revise the draft
 with correct email address.

 Shepherd's minor editorial comment on section 5 second paragraph: "Add a line specifying that GHC support capability

 among the MS/TP nodes are out of scope of this document". The author will update the text in the next revision.

(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?

A. No IPR disclosures had been filed by the co-authors of the document. Confirmation with each author is
 in progress.

(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If so, summarize any WG discussion and 
conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures.
A. No

(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?

A. The working group as a whole understands and agrees with the progress of this document.

(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.)

A. No.

(11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this document. 
(See and the Internet-Drafts Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; 
this check needs to be thorough.

No issues found.

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

A. Not Applicable.

(13) Have all references within this document been identified as either normative or informative?

A. 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?
A. 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.

A. 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.

No. This document will not update any base 6lo documents or  existing RFCs.

(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).

A. The document does not request any IANA change.

(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.

A. Not Applicable

(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.(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?

A. Not Applicable