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 |