As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document
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? Is this type of RFC indicated in the
title page header?
This document is requesting classification as a Proposed Standard. This type
is appropriate given the portions of the document that update RFCs 4944 and
6282 and define how the Dispatch Byte functions within the 6lowpan
(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:
RFC4944 defines the ESC dispatch type to allow for additional
dispatch bytes in the 6lowpan header. The value of the ESC byte was
updated by RFC6282, however, its usage was not defined either in
RFC6282 or in RFC4944. This document updates RFC4944 and RFC6282 by
defining the ESC extension byte code points including registration of
entries for known use cases at the time of writing of this document.
Working Group Summary
The genesis of this document comes from interactions with other SDOs
using the 6lowpan technologies. Support for this document was strong
given the wide and varied uses of RFCs 4944 and 6282.
No additional special reviews are needed. Feedback from ITU-T indicates
that the creation of this IANA registry will address their concerns.
Brian Haberman is the Document Shepherd
Suresh Krishnan 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 document shepherd performed several in-depth reviews of the draft
during its formulation and after its passage of WGLC. Part of the review
entailed mapping the requested IANA registry entries to the ITU-T
specifications using those entries to ensure complete coverage.
(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or
breadth of the reviews that have been performed?
(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
No special reviews needed.
(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
No concerns to note.
(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.
(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document?
If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR
(9) How solid is the WG consensus behind this document? Does it
represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others
being silent, or does the WG as a whole understand and agree with it?
A vast majority of the engaged WG participants strongly support this
document. There have been no objections raised to its publication.
(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.)
(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
No nits or gnats found.
(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review
criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.
(13) Have all references within this document been identified as
either normative or informative?
(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?
(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.
(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.
This document updates two RFCs (4944 and 6282). Both are duly
noted in the title page header and in the Abstract.
(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).
This document is essentially one big IANA Considerations. It creates
a new registry under the "IPv6 Low Power Personal Area Network Parameters"
protocol entry within the IANA tree. The new registry specification appears
complete and matches the textual discussion within the body of the document.
(18) List any new IANA registries that require Expert Review for future
allocations. Provide any public guidance that the IESG would find
useful in selecting the IANA Experts for these new registries.
The IANA Considerations section provides guidance for the designated experts
as the new registry is labeled as "Specification Required". The WG chairs
will communicate the identified experts to the shepherding AD.
(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.