(1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard,
Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? Why
is this the proper type of RFC? Is this type of RFC indicated in the
title page header?
Proposed Standard.
This is a normative specification for a protocol (an IP-over-foo
adaptation layer).
(2) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document Announcement
Write-Up. Please provide such a Document Announcement Write-Up. Recent
examples can be found in the "Action" announcements for approved
documents. The approval announcement contains the following sections:
Technical Summary
Relevant content can frequently be found in the abstract
and/or introduction of the document. If not, this may be
an indication that there are deficiencies in the abstract
or introduction.
Bluetooth Low Energy (BT-LE) is a low power air interface technology
defined by the Bluetooth Special Interest Group (BT SIG). While
Bluetooth has been widely implemented, the low power version of
Bluetooth is a new specification and enables the use of this air
interface with devices such as sensors, smart meters, appliances, etc.
The low power variant of Bluetooth is commonly specified in revision
4.0 of the Bluetooth specifications and commonly referred to as
Bluetooth 4.0. The BT SIG has issued subsequent updates (to date,
Bluetooth 4.1 and 4.2). This document describes how IPv6 is transported over
Bluetooth Low Energy 4.1 using 6LoWPAN techniques.
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?
This document represents the consensus of the 6Lo WG on how to apply
the technology developed originally for IEEE 802.15.4 applied to BT-LE.
This document initially appeared in the 6LoWPAN WG, the predecessor to the
6Lo WG, and made it all the way to approval at the IESG (last ballot comment:
2013-03-07). There is still one outstanding DISCUSS the clearing of which
required some work by the Bluetooth SIG. That initial version of the draft used
a fixed L2CAP channel ID. In this 2 year hiatus, the BT SIG had a policy
change, so instead of assigning the fixed channel ID, they defined the Internet
Protocol Support Profile (IPSP) 1.0. IPSP uses Connection-oriented Channels and
negotiation of dynamic channel ID. This enabled a simplification in the draft
as shown by the diff between versions 00 and 01:
http://tools.ietf.org/wg/6lo/draft-ietf-6lo-btle/draft-ietf-6lo-btle-01-from-00.diff.html
This support from BT SIG should address the remaining DISCUSS on the original
document. This document depends on IPSP 1.0, which requires Bluetooth 4.1 or
newer. Since these changes were significant, the document went back to the
working group, including the corresponding last call. There were few comments
this time around (including Dave Thaler, Carsten Bormann and this shepherd).
The document is improved as compared to the first time it went to IESG.
One point worth noting is that there was a thread discussing whether we'd use
64-bit IID's for this draft. This is a more general point that would apply to
more than just this draft, so it quickly became more a discussion of
https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7421 than a discussion of this particular draft.
In keeping with rfc7421's advice and per preference expressed by several WG
members as well as guidance by Ole Troan (6man co-chair), we stuck to 64-bit
IID's. It may be a worthwhile goal to go revise that part of the IPv6
addressing architecture, but "that's not a problem that should be solved in an
IP over foo document" (Ole Troan).
Document Quality
Are there existing implementations of the protocol? Have a
significant number of vendors indicated their plan to
implement the specification? Are there any reviewers that
merit special mention as having done a thorough review,
e.g., one that resulted in important changes or a
conclusion that the document had no substantive issues? If
there was a MIB Doctor, Media Type or other expert review,
what was its course (briefly)? In the case of a Media Type
review, on what date was the request posted?
The document is a product of the 6Lo (and 6LoWPAN) working group and has been
reviewed by a small number of working group members. It has also been reviewed
within the Bluetooth SIG (including its Internet Working Group). As far as it
is known to this Shepherd, so far it has been implemented by several companies
(one implementation has been demonstrated in the hallway of the IETF 83
meeting). The authors are aware of several other companies that have
implemented (including Nordic:
http://www.nordicsemi.com/eng/News/News-releases/Product-Related-News/Nordic-Semiconductor-IPv6-over-Bluetooth-Smart-protocol-stack-for-nRF51-Series-SoCs-enables-small-low-cost-ultra-low-power-Internet-of-Things-applications
and also in Bluez). The Bluetooth 4.1 specification and thus BT-LE itself is
implemented widely (e.g., in the many current phones, tablets and laptops), so
it is important to agree on an IP-over-foo specification for this link layer.
Personnel
Who is the Document Shepherd? Who is the Responsible Area
Director?
Gabriel Montenegro is the Document Shepherd.
Brian Haberman is the Responsible Area Director.
(3) Briefly describe the review of this document that was performed by
the Document Shepherd. If this version of the document is not ready
for publication, please explain why the document is being forwarded to
the IESG.
The Shepherd has personally reviewed the document, which caused an extra
revision after passing WGLC.
The Shepherd now believes that the document is ready for forwarding to
the IESG for publication as a Proposed Standard.
(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or
breadth of the reviews that have been performed?
The document is an output of the 6Lo WG and previously, the 6LoWPAN WG.
In its long history the document has benefitted from review both within the
WG as well as the IESG (full review cycle the first time around) in addition to
other areas (6man and Intarea held reviews of the first document).
There are several known implementations, which speaks for its clarity to
implementors. One can always find nits, but I think the document is useful and
ready to be published.
(5) Do portions of the document need review from a particular or from
broader perspective, e.g., security, operational complexity, AAA, DNS,
DHCP, XML, or internationalization? If so, describe the review that
took place.
No -- the document does not appear to require additional broader
review. As with many IP-over-foo documents, the document bridges
areas of knowledge that are available in the IETF and the Bluetooth
SIG, respectively. The bridging has been mainly done by the authors
(note that the draft has gained a relatively diverse set of authors in
the process.).
(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.
There are no remaining technical concerns with the document.
(7) Has each author confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR
disclosures required for full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78
and BCP 79 have already been filed. If not, explain why.
Yes, this has been re-confirmed by each individual author on
2012-05-13/-14. Again in Feb. 2015.
(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document?
If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR
disclosures.
No IPR disclosures have been made.
(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?
There is working group consensus behind this document. There is a
limited number of working group participants that are interested in
this specific link-layer technology and qualified for making
contributions and comments.
(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.)
The Shepherd is not aware of any discontent related to the specification.
On the contrary there is industry support and interest.
(11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this
document. (See http://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts
Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be
thorough.
The Shepherd has verified to the best of his ability that there are no
ID nits in this draft. The only warning output by IDnits does not apply,
as IPSP (published by the BT SIG) is a valid reference for a proposed standard.
(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review
criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.
No such formal review appears to be required.
(13) Have all references within this document been identified as
either normative or informative?
The Document Shepherd believes all references are appropriately split.
(14) Are there normative references to documents that are not ready for
advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state? If such normative
references exist, what is the plan for their completion?
No.
(15) Are there downward normative references references (see RFC 3967)?
If so, list these downward references to support the Area Director in the
Last Call procedure.
There are no down-references; note that there are normative references
to IEEE 802, Bluetooth 4.1 and IPSP specifications.
(16) Will publication of this document change the status of any
existing RFCs? Are those RFCs listed on the title page header, listed
in the abstract, and discussed in the introduction? If the RFCs are not
listed in the Abstract and Introduction, explain why, and point to the
part of the document where the relationship of this document to the
other RFCs is discussed. If this information is not in the document,
explain why the WG considers it unnecessary.
No.
(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).
There are no IANA considerations for this document.
(18) List any new IANA registries that require Expert Review for future
allocations. Provide any public guidance that the IESG would find
useful in selecting the IANA Experts for these new registries.
(None.)
(19) Describe reviews and automated checks performed by the Document
Shepherd to validate sections of the document written in a formal
language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc.
(None.)