Skip to main content

IPv6 Mesh over BLUETOOTH(R) Low Energy Using the Internet Protocol Support Profile (IPSP)
draft-ietf-6lo-blemesh-10

Revision differences

Document history

Date Rev. By Action
2021-12-08
10 (System) RFC Editor state changed to AUTH48-DONE from AUTH48
2021-11-29
10 (System) RFC Editor state changed to AUTH48
2021-10-07
10 (System) RFC Editor state changed to RFC-EDITOR from EDIT
2021-09-10
10 (System) IANA Action state changed to No IANA Actions from In Progress
2021-09-10
10 (System) RFC Editor state changed to EDIT
2021-09-10
10 (System) IESG state changed to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent
2021-09-10
10 (System) Announcement was received by RFC Editor
2021-09-10
10 (System) IANA Action state changed to In Progress
2021-09-10
10 Cindy Morgan IESG state changed to Approved-announcement sent from Approved-announcement to be sent
2021-09-10
10 Cindy Morgan IESG has approved the document
2021-09-10
10 Cindy Morgan Closed "Approve" ballot
2021-09-10
10 Cindy Morgan Ballot approval text was generated
2021-09-10
10 (System) Removed all action holders (IESG state changed)
2021-09-10
10 Erik Kline IESG state changed to Approved-announcement to be sent from IESG Evaluation::AD Followup
2021-08-18
10 Warren Kumari [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Warren Kumari
2021-08-17
10 Francesca Palombini [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Francesca Palombini
2021-06-09
10 Benjamin Kaduk [Ballot comment]
Thank you for addressing my discuss and comment points!
2021-06-09
10 Benjamin Kaduk [Ballot Position Update] Position for Benjamin Kaduk has been changed to No Objection from Discuss
2021-04-22
10 Martin Duke [Ballot comment]
Thanks for addressing my DISCUSS.
2021-04-22
10 Martin Duke [Ballot Position Update] Position for Martin Duke has been changed to No Objection from Discuss
2021-04-22
10 (System) Sub state has been changed to AD Followup from Revised ID Needed
2021-04-22
10 (System) IANA Review state changed to Version Changed - Review Needed from IANA OK - No Actions Needed
2021-04-22
10 Carles Gomez New version available: draft-ietf-6lo-blemesh-10.txt
2021-04-22
10 (System) New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Carles Gomez)
2021-04-22
10 Carles Gomez Uploaded new revision
2021-04-22
09 Gunter Van de Velde Closed request for Last Call review by OPSDIR with state 'Overtaken by Events'
2021-02-25
09 (System) Changed action holders to Carles Gomez, Teemu Savolainen, Seyed Darroudi, Michael Spoerk (IESG state changed)
2021-02-25
09 Cindy Morgan IESG state changed to IESG Evaluation::Revised I-D Needed from IESG Evaluation
2021-02-25
09 Magnus Westerlund [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Magnus Westerlund
2021-02-24
09 Murray Kucherawy [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Murray Kucherawy
2021-02-24
09 Barry Leiba [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Barry Leiba
2021-02-24
09 Benjamin Kaduk
[Ballot discuss]
I may well just be confused about this, but let's discuss and find out.
Section 3.3.2 says "[a]s per RFC 8505, a …
[Ballot discuss]
I may well just be confused about this, but let's discuss and find out.
Section 3.3.2 says "[a]s per RFC 8505, a 6LN MUST NOT register its
link-local address."  Which part of RFC 8505 says this?  Section 5.6
thereof seems to enumerate some cases where link-local addresses MUST
(not MUST NOT) be registered, and there's not much other discussion of
link-local addresses that I saw.
2021-02-24
09 Benjamin Kaduk
[Ballot comment]
I support Martin (D)'s Discuss (though I think maybe the use-case that
is in question is the non-homogeneous-MTU case).  At a minimum the …
[Ballot comment]
I support Martin (D)'s Discuss (though I think maybe the use-case that
is in question is the non-homogeneous-MTU case).  At a minimum the
security considerations should be discussing this scenario as a risk,
but ideally it could be avoided altogether.

(I also agree with Martin (V)'s comment.)

Section 3.1

  Similarly to RFC 7668, fragmentation functionality from 6LoWPAN
  standards is not used for IPv6 mesh over Bluetooth LE links.
  Bluetooth LE's fragmentation support provided by L2CAP is used when
  necessary.

I don't really understand why it's necessary to say "when necessary".
If IPv6 requires an MTU of 1280 octets but the BLE link is doing 247 or
less, doesn't the L2CAP fragmentation always need to be enabled for the
IPv6 mesh?

Section 3.2

Is it worth reiterating that with the multi-link subnet model, the
routers have to take on responsibility for tracking multicast state and
forwarding multicast/broadcast in a loop-free manner?  I think we do
talk about most of that elsewhere, but it could be useful to tie that in
with the tradeoffs that went into this decision.

(Does the "loop-free" part place any constraints on the IPv6 routing
protocol(s) that can be used with IPv6 mesh over BLE?)

Section 3.3.2

  1.  A Bluetooth LE 6LN SHOULD register its non-link-local addresses
  with its routers by sending a Neighbor Solicitation (NS) message with
  the Extended Address Registration Option (EARO) and process the
  Neighbor Advertisement (NA) accordingly.  Note that in some cases
  (e.g., very short-lived connections) it may not be worthwhile for a
  6LN to send an NS with EARO for registering its address.  However,
  the consequences of not registering the address (including non-
  reachability of the 6LN, and absence of DAD) need to be carefully
  considered.  [...]

Where can an exhaustive list of the consequences of not registering be
found?
It might also be helpful to give an example of something that a 6LN
might do on such a very-short-lived connection where the non-link-local
address is not registered (since, obviously, only link-local traffic
would be possible).

Section 3.3.3

  To enable efficient header compression, when the 6LBR sends a Router
  Advertisement it MAY include a 6LoWPAN Context Option (6CO) [RFC6775]
  matching each address prefix advertised via a Prefix Information
  Option (PIO) [RFC4861] for use in stateless address
  autoconfiguration.  Note that 6CO is not needed for context-based
  compression when context is pre-provisioned or provided by out-of-
  band means.

I see that in RFC 7668 sending 6CO in this situation was MUST-level
required.  Is the reasoning behind the weakening of the requirement just
the stated scenarios where pre-provisioned context renders the in-band
context indication superfluous?  If so, it might be possible to reword
to be more clear about expectations.  If not, some additional discussion
of the reasoning might be helpful.

Section 8

  connection with each 6LR (Step 3).  After establishment of those link
  layer connections (and after reception of Router Advertisements from
  the 6LBR), Step 4, the 6LRs start operating as routers, and also
  initiate the IPSP Router role (note: whether the IPSP Node role is
  kept running simultaneously is an implementation decision).  Then,

(nit/editorial) The theme seems to be that "step N" is in parentheses
after the description of the step, done everywhere except for step 4.
So maybe " the 6LRs start operating as routers, and also initiate the
IPSP Router role (Step 4) (note: whether the IPSP Node role is kept
running simultaneously is an implementation decision)"?
2021-02-24
09 Benjamin Kaduk [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded for Benjamin Kaduk
2021-02-24
09 Deborah Brungard [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Deborah Brungard
2021-02-24
09 Roman Danyliw [Ballot comment]
Thank you Catherine Meadows for the SECDIR review.
2021-02-24
09 Roman Danyliw [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Roman Danyliw
2021-02-24
09 Alissa Cooper [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Alissa Cooper
2021-02-24
09 Martin Vigoureux
[Ballot comment]
Hi,

thank you for this document, just a minor comment:

  The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
  "SHOULD", …
[Ballot comment]
Hi,

thank you for this document, just a minor comment:

  The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
  "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
  document are to be interpreted as described in BCP14 RFC 2119
  [RFC2119], RFC 8174 [RFC8174], when, and only when, they appear in
  all capitals, as shown here.
Strictly, this is not the text from 8174. "NOT RECOMMENDED" is missing.
2021-02-24
09 Martin Vigoureux [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Martin Vigoureux
2021-02-23
09 Martin Duke
[Ballot discuss]
I found this paragraph in Section 3.1 to be hand-wavy:

"Note that this specification allows using different MTUs in different
  links.  If …
[Ballot discuss]
I found this paragraph in Section 3.1 to be hand-wavy:

"Note that this specification allows using different MTUs in different
  links.  If an implementation requires use of the same MTU on every
  one of its links, and a new node with a smaller MTU is added to the
  network, a renegotiation of one or more links can occur.  In the
  worst case, the renegotiations could cascade network-wide.  In that
  case, implementers need to assess the impact of such phenomenon."

What are the consequences of link "renegotiation"? If every MTU downgrade results in a storm of messages, that's a bad property. Is the use case where the MTU must be the same on all links an important one? If not, simply requiring hosts to handle this case seems way cleaner.
2021-02-23
09 Martin Duke [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded for Martin Duke
2021-02-22
09 Alvaro Retana [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Alvaro Retana
2021-02-22
09 Robert Wilton
[Ballot comment]
Hi,

Thank you for this document.

A couple of minor comments relating to the diagram in 3.2 (figure 2):

(1) It wasn't clear …
[Ballot comment]
Hi,

Thank you for this document.

A couple of minor comments relating to the diagram in 3.2 (figure 2):

(1) It wasn't clear to me why the top left node was a 6LR rather than a 6LN.  If this is deliberate, it might be worth a sentence to explain the purpose here.
(2) I initially found the bubble around the v6 Mesh to be confusing  - I thought that it means that all the nodes are interconnected.  I'm not sure whether the bubble really helps the diagram, and probably could be removed, of if it is kept, I would suggest adding more space between the bubble line and the mesh network inside so that the bubble line isn't confused as representing links between the nodes.

Regards,
Rob
2021-02-22
09 Robert Wilton [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Robert Wilton
2021-02-08
09 (System) IANA Review state changed to IANA OK - No Actions Needed from Version Changed - Review Needed
2021-02-03
09 Erik Kline Placed on agenda for telechat - 2021-02-25
2021-02-03
09 Erik Kline Ballot has been issued
2021-02-03
09 Erik Kline [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Erik Kline
2021-02-03
09 Erik Kline Created "Approve" ballot
2021-02-03
09 Erik Kline IESG state changed to IESG Evaluation from Waiting for Writeup
2021-02-03
09 Erik Kline Ballot writeup was changed
2021-02-03
09 Erik Kline
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 …
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 IPv6 mesh over Bluetooth Low Energy links (based on BLE
IPSP profile). The document mandates and in some cases recommends certain IPv6
procedures.

b. Why is this the proper type of RFC?
Rsp: 'Standards Track' document is needed to mandate and recommend certain
handling (such as some aspects of Neighbor Discovery, Header Compression etc).

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

    This document enables IPv6 mesh over BLE networks. For enabling IPv6 mesh,
    the document specifies the use of Neighbor discovery, header compression
    and address autoconfiguration in context to multi-hop BLE links. The
    document utilizes BLE's IPSP profile support which can be used for IPv6
    communication on top of BLE links. Note however that the use of routing
    protocol is required for routing the packets and choosing appropriate
    parent set etc and is beyond the scope of this document.

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 by 6lo working group and some of the BLE SIG
experts.
- Several WG participants provided feedback namely,
    a. Bilhanan Silverajan who pointed out that the draft refers to an old BLE
    spec of 4.1 and that another spec has already superseded and should be
    used.
    b. Pascal Thubert pointed out the impact of RFC 6775 updates on this
    document and suggested the updates.
    c. Rahul Jadhav pointed out that the registration of link-local addresses
    cannot be mandated and there are reasons to send packets without header
    compression in some cases. Similarly the mandate to use multihop DAD was
    discussed and removed.
    All the feedbacks were handled and subsequent updates reviewed/accepted by
    the reviewers.
- version 06 was the final version reviewed by the shepherd, which resulted in
  ver-07. Primary changes were related to consistent application of EARO in
  place of ARO and suggested use of a call flow diagram to explain the node
  joining procedure.

With these reviews and discussions -07 is ready for IESG review.

Document Quality

  Are there existing implementations of the protocol? Have a
  significant number of vendors indicated their plan to
  implement the specification?
Shepherd response:
The authors have a prototype implementation but there is no production
implementation.

  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:
Bilhanan Silverajan, Pascal Thubert, and Rahul Jadhav have reviewed and
provided comments and the drafts were subsequently updated. The review
encompassed several rounds.  Yong-Geun Hong and Houjianqiang (Derek) have
reviewed and found no 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?
Shepherd response: Not Applicable

Personnel

Document Shepherd: Rahul Jadhav
Responsible Area Director: Erik Kline

(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 are addressed in version 07 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


(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 extends RFC 7668 for using IPv6 mesh primitives based on BLE IPSP
profile. Mark Powell from Bluetooth SIG and an expert BLE (linux kernel)
implementor Alain Michaud had reviewed the document. The document may not need
a review from any other IETF directorate as part of the IESG processing.


(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, no IPRs found.

(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 as of now.

(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: There have been 3 active comment providers and 2 other WG
participants (all from different backgrounds) who indicated that they have
reviewed the document and believe that it is ready for IESG submission. There
have been several voices indicating usefulness of the draft with no one voicing
any discontent.

(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

(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 5 warnings and 2 comments.
== The copyright year in the IETF Trust and authors Copyright Line does not
    match the current year

  -- The document date (December 14, 2019) is 58 days in the past.  Is this
    intentional?

== Missing Reference: 'RFC 7416' is mentioned on line 392, but not defined
    [Shepherd: The RFC is defined in the refs section]

  == Unused Reference: 'RFC7668' is defined on line 614, but no explicit
    reference was found in the text
    [Shepherd: The RFC is referenced]

  == Unused Reference: 'RFC7416' is defined on line 643, but no explicit
    reference was found in the text.
    [Shepherd: The RFC is referenced]

  -- Possible downref: Non-RFC (?) normative reference: ref. 'IPSP'
    [Shepherd: IPSP spec is provided as normative ref and the ref is present
    in appropriate section]

Summary: 0 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 5 warnings (==), 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:
The only downref listed is about IPSP. I found that the ref is included in the
normative section as it needs to be read/understood before the implementation
based on this draft could be handled.

(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: There are no updates to 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).
Shepherd response: No IANA registries are updated by 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.
Shepherd response: No IANA registries are updated.

(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.
2020-12-07
09 (System) IANA Review state changed to Version Changed - Review Needed from IANA OK - No Actions Needed
2020-12-07
09 Carles Gomez New version available: draft-ietf-6lo-blemesh-09.txt
2020-12-07
09 (System) New version approved
2020-12-07
09 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Seyed Darroudi , Michael Spoerk , Teemu Savolainen , Carles Gomez
2020-12-07
09 Carles Gomez Uploaded new revision
2020-12-04
08 Pete Resnick Request for Last Call review by GENART Completed: Ready with Issues. Reviewer: Pete Resnick. Sent review to list.
2020-11-18
08 Catherine Meadows Request for Last Call review by SECDIR Completed: Ready. Reviewer: Catherine Meadows. Sent review to list.
2020-10-31
08 Acee Lindem Request for Last Call review by RTGDIR Completed: Has Nits. Reviewer: Acee Lindem. Sent review to list.
2020-10-28
08 Dominique Barthel Request for Last Call review by IOTDIR Completed: Ready with Nits. Reviewer: Dominique Barthel. Sent review to list.
2020-10-27
08 Min Ye Request for Last Call review by RTGDIR is assigned to Acee Lindem
2020-10-27
08 Min Ye Request for Last Call review by RTGDIR is assigned to Acee Lindem
2020-10-27
08 Min Ye Assignment of request for Last Call review by RTGDIR to Geoff Huston was rejected
2020-10-27
08 Min Ye Request for Last Call review by RTGDIR is assigned to Geoff Huston
2020-10-27
08 Min Ye Request for Last Call review by RTGDIR is assigned to Geoff Huston
2020-10-27
08 Min Ye Assignment of request for Last Call review by RTGDIR to Christian Hopps was marked no-response
2020-10-27
08 Min Ye Assignment of request for Last Call review by RTGDIR to Susan Hares was marked no-response
2020-10-22
08 (System) IESG state changed to Waiting for Writeup from In Last Call
2020-10-20
08 (System) IANA Review state changed to IANA OK - No Actions Needed from IANA - Review Needed
2020-10-20
08 Sabrina Tanamal
(Via drafts-lastcall@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

The IANA Functions Operator has reviewed draft-ietf-6lo-blemesh-08, which is currently in Last Call, and has the following comments:

We …
(Via drafts-lastcall@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

The IANA Functions Operator has reviewed draft-ietf-6lo-blemesh-08, which is currently in Last Call, and has the following comments:

We understand that this document doesn't require any registry actions.

While it's often helpful for a document's IANA Considerations section to remain in place upon publication even if there are no actions, if the authors strongly prefer to remove it, we do not object.

If this assessment is not accurate, please respond as soon as possible.

Thank you,

Sabrina Tanamal
Senior IANA Services Specialist
2020-10-20
08 Gunter Van de Velde Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR is assigned to Tim Wicinski
2020-10-20
08 Gunter Van de Velde Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR is assigned to Tim Wicinski
2020-10-14
08 Min Ye Request for Last Call review by RTGDIR is assigned to Christian Hopps
2020-10-14
08 Min Ye Request for Last Call review by RTGDIR is assigned to Christian Hopps
2020-10-13
08 Samita Chakrabarti Request for Last Call review by IOTDIR is assigned to Dominique Barthel
2020-10-13
08 Samita Chakrabarti Request for Last Call review by IOTDIR is assigned to Dominique Barthel
2020-10-13
08 Samita Chakrabarti Assignment of request for Last Call review by IOTDIR to Carles Gomez was rejected
2020-10-13
08 Samita Chakrabarti Request for Last Call review by IOTDIR is assigned to Carles Gomez
2020-10-13
08 Samita Chakrabarti Request for Last Call review by IOTDIR is assigned to Carles Gomez
2020-10-10
08 Erik Kline Requested Last Call review by IOTDIR
2020-10-09
08 Jean Mahoney Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Pete Resnick
2020-10-09
08 Jean Mahoney Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Pete Resnick
2020-10-08
08 Min Ye Request for Last Call review by RTGDIR is assigned to Susan Hares
2020-10-08
08 Min Ye Request for Last Call review by RTGDIR is assigned to Susan Hares
2020-10-08
08 Tero Kivinen Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Catherine Meadows
2020-10-08
08 Tero Kivinen Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Catherine Meadows
2020-10-08
08 Alvaro Retana Requested Last Call review by RTGDIR
2020-10-07
08 Cindy Morgan IANA Review state changed to IANA - Review Needed
2020-10-07
08 Cindy Morgan
The following Last Call announcement was sent out (ends 2020-10-21):

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC: draft-ietf-6lo-blemesh@ietf.org, 6lo@ietf.org, 6lo-chairs@ietf.org, rahul.ietf@gmail.com, ek.ietf@gmail.com …
The following Last Call announcement was sent out (ends 2020-10-21):

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC: draft-ietf-6lo-blemesh@ietf.org, 6lo@ietf.org, 6lo-chairs@ietf.org, rahul.ietf@gmail.com, ek.ietf@gmail.com, JADHAV Rahul
Reply-To: last-call@ietf.org
Sender:
Subject: Last Call:  (IPv6 Mesh over BLUETOOTH(R) Low Energy using IPSP) to Proposed Standard


The IESG has received a request from the IPv6 over Networks of
Resource-constrained Nodes WG (6lo) to consider the following document: -
'IPv6 Mesh over BLUETOOTH(R) Low Energy using IPSP'
  as Proposed Standard

The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits final
comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the
last-call@ietf.org mailing lists by 2020-10-21. Exceptionally, comments may
be sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the beginning
of the Subject line to allow automated sorting.

Abstract


  RFC 7668 describes the adaptation of 6LoWPAN techniques to enable
  IPv6 over Bluetooth low energy networks that follow the star
  topology.  However, recent Bluetooth specifications allow the
  formation of extended topologies as well.  This document specifies
  mechanisms that are needed to enable IPv6 mesh over Bluetooth Low
  Energy links established by using the Bluetooth Internet Protocol
  Support Profile.  This document does not specify the routing protocol
  to be used in an IPv6 mesh over Bluetooth LE links.




The file can be obtained via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-6lo-blemesh/



No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D.




2020-10-07
08 Cindy Morgan IESG state changed to In Last Call from Last Call Requested
2020-10-07
08 Erik Kline Last call was requested
2020-10-07
08 Erik Kline Last call announcement was generated
2020-10-07
08 Erik Kline Ballot approval text was generated
2020-10-07
08 Erik Kline Ballot writeup was generated
2020-10-07
08 Erik Kline IESG state changed to Last Call Requested from AD Evaluation::AD Followup
2020-10-07
08 (System) Sub state has been changed to AD Followup from Revised ID Needed
2020-10-07
08 Carles Gomez New version available: draft-ietf-6lo-blemesh-08.txt
2020-10-07
08 (System) New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Carles Gomez)
2020-10-07
08 Carles Gomez Uploaded new revision
2020-09-27
07 Erik Kline
[ section 1 ]

* "In consequence" -> "As a consequence" or "As a result", perhaps

[ section 2 ]

* "On the other hand": …
[ section 1 ]

* "In consequence" -> "As a consequence" or "As a result", perhaps

[ section 2 ]

* "On the other hand": consider a paragraph break here.  I mention this
  only because when I got to the end of this paragraph to
  "a device may implement both roles simultaneously" I briefly had to rescan
  to see if "both roles" referred to {node, router} or {central, peripheral}.

  Also, I wonder if "On the other hand" can be swapped for "Separately," or
  "Additionally".

[ section 3.1 ]

* Should this document RECOMMEND something behaviour for IP stacks to adopt,
  like just sticking to 1280 to avoid doing too much work?

[ section 3.2 ]

* What does "A prefix is used on the whole subnet" mean?  Does it mean to say:
  "A single Global Unicast prefix is used on the whole subnet"?

[ section 3.3.2 ]

* "registers for a same compression context" -> perhaps:

  "If the 6LN registers multiple addresses that are not based on Bluetooth
  device address using the same compression context, ..."?

* "connection with another node previously running as a router" ->
  "connection with another node currently running as a router"?

[ section 3.3.3 ]

* "For the rest of packet transmissions" ->
  "For all other packet transmissions"?
2020-09-27
07 Erik Kline IESG state changed to AD Evaluation::Revised I-D Needed from AD Evaluation
2020-09-12
07 Erik Kline IESG state changed to AD Evaluation from Publication Requested
2020-09-02
07 Carles Gomez Notification list changed to JADHAV Rahul <rahul.ietf@gmail.com> from JADHAV Rahul <rahul.jadhav@huawei.com>, JADHAV Rahul <rahul.ietf@gmail.com>
2020-06-05
07 Shwetha Bhandari
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 …
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 IPv6 mesh over Bluetooth Low Energy links (based on BLE
IPSP profile). The document mandates and in some cases recommends certain IPv6
procedures.

b. Why is this the proper type of RFC?
Rsp: 'Standards Track' document is needed to mandate and recommend certain
handling (such as some aspects of Neighbor Discovery, Header Compression etc).

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

    This document enables IPv6 mesh over BLE networks. For enabling IPv6 mesh,
    the document specifies the use of Neighbor discovery, header compression
    and address autoconfiguration in context to multi-hop BLE links. The
    document utilizes BLE's IPSP profile support which can be used for IPv6
    communication on top of BLE links. Note however that the use of routing
    protocol is required for routing the packets and choosing appropriate
    parent set etc and is beyond the scope of this document.

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 by 6lo working group and some of the BLE SIG
experts.
- Several WG participants provided feedback namely,
    a. Bilhanan Silverajan who pointed out that the draft refers to an old BLE
    spec of 4.1 and that another spec has already superseded and should be
    used.
    b. Pascal Thubert pointed out the impact of RFC 6775 updates on this
    document and suggested the updates.
    c. Rahul Jadhav pointed out that the registration of link-local addresses
    cannot be mandated and there are reasons to send packets without header
    compression in some cases. Similarly the mandate to use multihop DAD was
    discussed and removed.
    All the feedbacks were handled and subsequent updates reviewed/accepted by
    the reviewers.
- version 06 was the final version reviewed by the shepherd, which resulted in
  ver-07. Primary changes were related to consistent application of EARO in
  place of ARO and suggested use of a call flow diagram to explain the node
  joining procedure.

With these reviews and discussions -07 is ready for IESG review.

Document Quality

  Are there existing implementations of the protocol? Have a
  significant number of vendors indicated their plan to
  implement the specification?
Shepherd response:
The authors have a prototype implementation but there is no production
implementation.

  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:
Bilhanan Silverajan, Pascal Thubert, and Rahul Jadhav have reviewed and
provided comments and the drafts were subsequently updated. The review
encompassed several rounds.  Yong-Geun Hong and Houjianqiang (Derek) have
reviewed and found no 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?
Shepherd response: Not Applicable

Personnel

Document Shepherd: Rahul Jadhav
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.
Shepherd response:
I have reviewed the document and my comments are addressed in version 07 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


(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 extends RFC 7668 for using IPv6 mesh primitives based on BLE IPSP
profile. Mark Powell from Bluetooth SIG and an expert BLE (linux kernel)
implementor Alain Michaud had reviewed the document. The document may not need
a review from any other IETF directorate as part of the IESG processing.


(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, no IPRs found.

(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 as of now.

(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: There have been 3 active comment providers and 2 other WG
participants (all from different backgrounds) who indicated that they have
reviewed the document and believe that it is ready for IESG submission. There
have been several voices indicating usefulness of the draft with no one voicing
any discontent.

(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

(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 5 warnings and 2 comments.
== The copyright year in the IETF Trust and authors Copyright Line does not
    match the current year

  -- The document date (December 14, 2019) is 58 days in the past.  Is this
    intentional?

== Missing Reference: 'RFC 7416' is mentioned on line 392, but not defined
    [Shepherd: The RFC is defined in the refs section]

  == Unused Reference: 'RFC7668' is defined on line 614, but no explicit
    reference was found in the text
    [Shepherd: The RFC is referenced]

  == Unused Reference: 'RFC7416' is defined on line 643, but no explicit
    reference was found in the text.
    [Shepherd: The RFC is referenced]

  -- Possible downref: Non-RFC (?) normative reference: ref. 'IPSP'
    [Shepherd: IPSP spec is provided as normative ref and the ref is present
    in appropriate section]

Summary: 0 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 5 warnings (==), 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:
The only downref listed is about IPSP. I found that the ref is included in the
normative section as it needs to be read/understood before the implementation
based on this draft could be handled.

(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: There are no updates to 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).
Shepherd response: No IANA registries are updated by 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.
Shepherd response: No IANA registries are updated.

(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.
2020-06-05
07 Shwetha Bhandari Responsible AD changed to Erik Kline
2020-06-05
07 Shwetha Bhandari IETF WG state changed to Submitted to IESG for Publication from In WG Last Call
2020-06-05
07 Shwetha Bhandari IESG state changed to Publication Requested from I-D Exists
2020-06-05
07 Shwetha Bhandari IESG process started in state Publication Requested
2020-02-23
07 Rahul Jadhav
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 …
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 IPv6 mesh over Bluetooth Low Energy links (based on BLE
IPSP profile). The document mandates and in some cases recommends certain IPv6
procedures.

b. Why is this the proper type of RFC?
Rsp: 'Standards Track' document is needed to mandate and recommend certain
handling (such as some aspects of Neighbor Discovery, Header Compression etc).

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

    This document enables IPv6 mesh over BLE networks. For enabling IPv6 mesh,
    the document specifies the use of Neighbor discovery, header compression
    and address autoconfiguration in context to multi-hop BLE links. The
    document utilizes BLE's IPSP profile support which can be used for IPv6
    communication on top of BLE links. Note however that the use of routing
    protocol is required for routing the packets and choosing appropriate
    parent set etc and is beyond the scope of this document.

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 by 6lo working group and some of the BLE SIG
experts.
- Several WG participants provided feedback namely,
    a. Bilhanan Silverajan who pointed out that the draft refers to an old BLE
    spec of 4.1 and that another spec has already superseded and should be
    used.
    b. Pascal Thubert pointed out the impact of RFC 6775 updates on this
    document and suggested the updates.
    c. Rahul Jadhav pointed out that the registration of link-local addresses
    cannot be mandated and there are reasons to send packets without header
    compression in some cases. Similarly the mandate to use multihop DAD was
    discussed and removed.
    All the feedbacks were handled and subsequent updates reviewed/accepted by
    the reviewers.
- version 06 was the final version reviewed by the shepherd, which resulted in
  ver-07. Primary changes were related to consistent application of EARO in
  place of ARO and suggested use of a call flow diagram to explain the node
  joining procedure.

With these reviews and discussions -07 is ready for IESG review.

Document Quality

  Are there existing implementations of the protocol? Have a
  significant number of vendors indicated their plan to
  implement the specification?
Shepherd response:
The authors have a prototype implementation but there is no production
implementation.

  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:
Bilhanan Silverajan, Pascal Thubert, and Rahul Jadhav have reviewed and
provided comments and the drafts were subsequently updated. The review
encompassed several rounds.  Yong-Geun Hong and Houjianqiang (Derek) have
reviewed and found no 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?
Shepherd response: Not Applicable

Personnel

Document Shepherd: Rahul Jadhav
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.
Shepherd response:
I have reviewed the document and my comments are addressed in version 07 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


(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 extends RFC 7668 for using IPv6 mesh primitives based on BLE IPSP
profile. Mark Powell from Bluetooth SIG and an expert BLE (linux kernel)
implementor Alain Michaud had reviewed the document. The document may not need
a review from any other IETF directorate as part of the IESG processing.


(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, no IPRs found.

(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 as of now.

(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: There have been 3 active comment providers and 2 other WG
participants (all from different backgrounds) who indicated that they have
reviewed the document and believe that it is ready for IESG submission. There
have been several voices indicating usefulness of the draft with no one voicing
any discontent.

(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

(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 5 warnings and 2 comments.
== The copyright year in the IETF Trust and authors Copyright Line does not
    match the current year

  -- The document date (December 14, 2019) is 58 days in the past.  Is this
    intentional?

== Missing Reference: 'RFC 7416' is mentioned on line 392, but not defined
    [Shepherd: The RFC is defined in the refs section]

  == Unused Reference: 'RFC7668' is defined on line 614, but no explicit
    reference was found in the text
    [Shepherd: The RFC is referenced]

  == Unused Reference: 'RFC7416' is defined on line 643, but no explicit
    reference was found in the text.
    [Shepherd: The RFC is referenced]

  -- Possible downref: Non-RFC (?) normative reference: ref. 'IPSP'
    [Shepherd: IPSP spec is provided as normative ref and the ref is present
    in appropriate section]

Summary: 0 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 5 warnings (==), 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:
The only downref listed is about IPSP. I found that the ref is included in the
normative section as it needs to be read/understood before the implementation
based on this draft could be handled.

(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: There are no updates to 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).
Shepherd response: No IANA registries are updated by 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.
Shepherd response: No IANA registries are updated.

(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.
2020-02-23
07 Rahul Jadhav
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 …
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 IPv6 mesh over Bluetooth Low Energy links (based on BLE
IPSP profile). The document mandates and in some cases recommends certain IPv6
procedures.

b. Why is this the proper type of RFC?
Rsp: 'Standards Track' document is needed to mandate and recommend certain
handling (such as some aspects of Neighbor Discovery, Header Compression etc).

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

    This document enables IPv6 mesh over BLE networks. For enabling IPv6 mesh,
    the document specifies the use of Neighbor discovery, header compression
    and address autoconfiguration in context to multi-hop BLE links. The
    document utilizes BLE's IPSP profile support which can be used for IPv6
    communication on top of BLE links. Note however that the use of routing
    protocol is required for routing the packets and choosing appropriate
    parent set etc and is beyond the scope of this document.

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 by 6lo working group and some of the BLE SIG
experts.
- Several WG participants provided feedback namely,
    a. Bilhanan Silverajan who pointed out that the draft refers to an old BLE
    spec of 4.1 and that another spec has already superseded and should be
    used.
    b. Pascal Thubert pointed out the impact of RFC 6775 updates on this
    document and suggested the updates.
    c. Rahul Jadhav pointed out that the registration of link-local addresses
    cannot be mandated and there are reasons to send packets without header
    compression in some cases. Similarly the mandate to use multihop DAD was
    discussed and removed.
    All the feedbacks were handled and subsequent updates reviewed/accepted by
    the reviewers.
- version 06 was the final version reviewed by the shepherd, which resulted in
  ver-07. Primary changes were related to consistent application of EARO in
  place of ARO and suggested use of a call flow diagram to explain the node
  joining procedure.

With these reviews and discussions -07 is ready for IESG review.

Document Quality

  Are there existing implementations of the protocol? Have a
  significant number of vendors indicated their plan to
  implement the specification?
Shepherd response:
The authors have a prototype implementation but there is no production
implementation.

  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:
Bilhanan Silverajan, Pascal Thubert, and Rahul Jadhav have reviewed and
provided comments and the drafts were subsequently updated. The review
encompassed several rounds.  Yong-Geun Hong and Houjianqiang (Derek) have
reviewed and found no 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?
Shepherd response: Not Applicable

Personnel

Document Shepherd: Rahul Jadhav
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.
Shepherd response:
I have reviewed the document and my comments are addressed in version 07 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


(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 extends RFC 7668 for using IPv6 mesh primitives based on BLE IPSP
profile. Mark Powell from Bluetooth SIG and an expert BLE (linux kernel)
implementor Alain Michaud had reviewed the document. The document may not need
a review from any other IETF directorate as part of the IESG processing.


(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, no IPRs found.

(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 as of now.

(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: There have been 3 active comment providers and 2 other WG
participants (all from different backgrounds) who indicated that they have
reviewed the document and believe that it is ready for IESG submission. There
have been several voices indicating usefulness of the draft with no one voicing
any discontent.

(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

(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 5 warnings and 2 comments.
== The copyright year in the IETF Trust and authors Copyright Line does not
    match the current year

  -- The document date (December 14, 2019) is 58 days in the past.  Is this
    intentional?

== Missing Reference: 'RFC 7416' is mentioned on line 392, but not defined
    [Shepherd: The RFC is defined in the refs section]

  == Unused Reference: 'RFC7668' is defined on line 614, but no explicit
    reference was found in the text
    [Shepherd: The RFC is referenced]

  == Unused Reference: 'RFC7416' is defined on line 643, but no explicit
    reference was found in the text.
    [Shepherd: The RFC is referenced]

  -- Possible downref: Non-RFC (?) normative reference: ref. 'IPSP'
    [Shepherd: IPSP spec is provided as normative ref and the ref is present
    in appropriate section]

Summary: 0 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 5 warnings (==), 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:
The only downref listed is about IPSP. I found that the ref is included in the
normative section as it needs to be read/understood before the implementation
based on this draft could be handled.

(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: There are no updates to 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).
Shepherd response: No IANA registries are updated by 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.
Shepherd response: No IANA registries are updated.

(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.
2020-02-23
07 Shwetha Bhandari Notification list changed to JADHAV Rahul <rahul.jadhav@huawei.com>, JADHAV Rahul <rahul.ietf@gmail.com> from JADHAV Rahul <rahul.jadhav@huawei.com>
2020-02-23
07 Shwetha Bhandari Document shepherd changed to RAHUL ARVIND JADHAV
2019-12-14
07 Carles Gomez New version available: draft-ietf-6lo-blemesh-07.txt
2019-12-14
07 (System) New version approved
2019-12-14
07 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Seyed Darroudi , Teemu Savolainen , Michael Spoerk , Carles Gomez
2019-12-14
07 Carles Gomez Uploaded new revision
2019-09-28
06 Carles Gomez New version available: draft-ietf-6lo-blemesh-06.txt
2019-09-28
06 (System) New version approved
2019-09-28
06 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Seyed Darroudi , Teemu Savolainen , Michael Spoerk , Carles Gomez
2019-09-28
06 Carles Gomez Uploaded new revision
2019-09-10
05 (System) Document has expired
2019-07-10
05 Carles Gomez Notification list changed to JADHAV Rahul <rahul.jadhav@huawei.com>
2019-07-10
05 Carles Gomez Document shepherd changed to RAHUL ARVIND JADHAV
2019-03-09
05 Carles Gomez New version available: draft-ietf-6lo-blemesh-05.txt
2019-03-09
05 (System) New version approved
2019-03-09
05 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Seyed Darroudi , Teemu Savolainen , Michael Spoerk , Carles Gomez
2019-03-09
05 Carles Gomez Uploaded new revision
2019-01-16
04 Gabriel Montenegro IETF WG state changed to In WG Last Call from WG Document
2019-01-16
04 Carles Gomez New version available: draft-ietf-6lo-blemesh-04.txt
2019-01-16
04 (System) New version approved
2019-01-16
04 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Seyed Darroudi , Teemu Savolainen , Michael Spoerk , Carles Gomez
2019-01-16
04 Carles Gomez Uploaded new revision
2019-01-03
03 (System) Document has expired
2018-07-02
03 Carles Gomez New version available: draft-ietf-6lo-blemesh-03.txt
2018-07-02
03 (System) New version approved
2018-07-02
03 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Teemu Savolainen , Seyed Darroudi , 6lo-chairs@ietf.org, Carles Gomez
2018-07-02
03 Carles Gomez Uploaded new revision
2018-04-19
02 (System) Document has expired
2017-09-11
02 Carles Gomez New version available: draft-ietf-6lo-blemesh-02.txt
2017-09-11
02 (System) New version approved
2017-09-11
02 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Teemu Savolainen , Seyed Darroudi , Carles Gomez
2017-09-11
02 Carles Gomez Uploaded new revision
2017-07-15
01 Samita Chakrabarti Changed consensus to Yes from Unknown
2017-07-15
01 Samita Chakrabarti Intended Status changed to Proposed Standard from None
2017-03-29
01 Gabriel Montenegro This document now replaces draft-gomez-6lo-blemesh instead of None
2017-03-11
01 Carles Gomez New version available: draft-ietf-6lo-blemesh-01.txt
2017-03-11
01 (System) New version approved
2017-03-11
01 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Teemu Savolainen , Seyed Darroudi , 6lo-chairs@ietf.org, Carles Gomez
2017-03-11
01 Carles Gomez Uploaded new revision
2016-11-13
00 Carles Gomez New version available: draft-ietf-6lo-blemesh-00.txt
2016-11-13
00 (System) WG -00 approved
2016-11-13
00 Carles Gomez Set submitter to "Carles Gomez ", replaces to (none) and sent approval email to group chairs: 6lo-chairs@ietf.org
2016-11-13
00 Carles Gomez Uploaded new revision