Shepherd writeup

(1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)?

A1: Standards track [ Proposed Standard]
Why is this the proper type of RFC? Is this type of RFC indicated in the title page header?

A2: The document specifies  transmission of IPv6-over-ITU-T G.9959 networks. The document uses 6lo documents as its base document and specifies the behavior of the RFC4944, RFC 6282 and RFC6775 for ITU-T G.9959. This document requires to be a standards track document.
Yes, the document title page indicates being 'standard track'.

(2) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document Announcement Write-Up. Please provide such a Document Announcement Write-Up. Recent examples can be found in the "Action" announcements for approved documents. The approval announcement contains the following sections:

Technical Summary:

The ITU-T G.9959 recommendation targets low-power Personal Area Networks.  This document defines the frame format for
transmission of IPv6 [RFC2460] packets as well as the formation of IPv6 link-local addresses and statelessly autoconfigured IPv6
addresses on G.9959 networks.
The general approach of this document is to adapt 6lowpan base documents (RFC 4944, RFC 6282 and RFC 6775) with minor modifications for running efficiently in G.9959 networks.

The document also discusses mapping of G.9959 parameters (ex: HomeID) into IPv6 address formation.

Working Group Summary:

The work on draft-ietf-6lo-lowpanz started sometime ago in 6lowpan WG and now the work is transferred to 6lo WG. It has been reviewed by several members of the WG. During WG LC an improvement request came in to update the solution for non-MAC derived IPv6 address support. In addition there were comments by Carsten Bormann on multiple cases of SHOULD and MUST in the document. The changes were substantial.  The document addressed privacy comments by providing options for using frequently changing managed addressing (example DHCPv6) at the cost of efficiency and cost of operations. However the link-layer address MUST be derived from the IID in order to provide efficient header compression described in RFC6282. In the constrained environment, the compression and ability for quick identification might be more practical and desirable than privacy as usually these networks come with gateway devices. However, because of the substantial changes in the document after the first WG LC, the 6lo-chairs decided to have a second LC. During second LC, there were comments on clarification and editorial changes. After the LC, there were several comments from the co-chair/shepherd and the document authors also addressed them mostly and finally pbulished version 05.
The WG LC comments are listed in the issue tracker.

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?

There is currently single implementation available by Sigma deisgn which has products in Z-wave technology area. We do not know about other Z-wave implementations of this draft. However, once it becomes RFC, it will be referenced in the Z-Wave Alliance documents and it will then be expected to be implemented by other Z-Wave vendors in due course. Note that Z-wave vendors are not typpical IETF participants. Carsten Bormann's name can be mentioned as one of the thorough reviewers who suggested non-trivial changes.


Who is the Document Shepherd? Who is the Responsible Area Director?
Document shepherd: Samita Chakrabarti
Responsible Area Director: Brian Haberman

(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 document has been reviewed by the document shepherd and comments were addressed in revision -05 of the document. The document is in good shape. The terms and definition section may need more explanatory text before publication.

(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed?
No. It has been reviewed by a number of WG members and co-chairs of 6lo.

(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.
A. Not applicable

(6) Describe any specific concerns or issues that the Document Shepherd has with this document that the Responsible Area Director and/or the IESG should be aware of? For example, perhaps he or she is uncomfortable with certain parts of the document, or has concerns whether there really is a need for it. In any event, if the WG has discussed those issues and has indicated that it still wishes to advance the document, detail those concerns here.

A. The document is quite informative. For cosmetic reasons, the terms and definition sections should have more text to give people an idea about different lowpower acronyms and specifics of G.9959 networks.

(7) Has each author confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR disclosures required for full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79 have already been filed. If not, explain why?

A. Yes the document authors confirmed that they are aware about the IETF rules. They are investigating with their legal counsel if any IPR in Z-wave alliance indirectly apply to this draft. 
The following is their findings so far. They informed that will be working on an IPR statement.

"Most likely, there will be no particular IPR issues with the lowpanz draft but it builds on top of ITU-T G.9959 ( which refers to Sigma IPR.
G.9959 contains the following clause:

ITU draws attention to the possibility that the practice or implementation of this Recommendation may involve the use of a claimed Intellectual Property Right. ITU takes no position concerning the evidence, validity or applicability of claimed Intellectual Property Rights, whether asserted by ITU members or others outside of the Recommendation development process.
As of the date of approval of this Recommendation, ITU had received notice of intellectual property, protected by patents, which may be required to implement this Recommendation. However, implementers are cautioned that this may not represent the latest information and are therefore strongly urged to consult the TSB patent database at"

(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures.

A. Please see above for the possible IPR from Sigma Design submitted to Z-Wave which can affect this document. The document authors informed that they are working on preparing an IPR statement for IETF.

A 2 week WG call for IPR review had been placed and there was no objection on the IPR policy in the 6lo mailing list or any private emails to the chairs. The shepherding chair sent an email after the review period letting the WG know that this document now would advance to the next stage.

(9) How solid is the WG consensus behind this document? Does it represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others being silent, or does the WG as a whole understand and agree with it?

A. The WG as a whole understands and agrees.

(10) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If so, please summarise the areas of conflict in separate email messages to the Responsible Area Director. (It should be in a separate email because this questionnaire is publicly available.)

A. Not aware of any discontent.

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

A. None.

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

A. Not applicable.

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

A. Yes.

(14) Are there normative references to documents that are not ready for advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state? If such normative references exist, what is the plan for their completion?

A. Not applicable. All normative references are RFCs.

(15) Are there downward normative references references (see RFC 3967)? If so, list these downward references to support the Area Director in the Last Call procedure.

A. No. [ Assuming RFC 2119 is allowed in normative section ]

(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.

A. This document specifies transmission of IPv6 packets over G.9959 networks, though it uses RFC4944, RFC6282 and RFC6775 as reference points it does not update them.

(17) Describe the Document Shepherd's review of the IANA considerations section, especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the document. Confirm that all protocol extensions that the document makes are associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm that newly created IANA registries include a detailed specification of the initial contents for the registry, that allocations procedures for future registrations are defined, and a reasonable name for the new registry has been suggested (see RFC 5226).

A. The document does not request any IANA change.

(18) List any new IANA registries that require Expert Review for future allocations. Provide any public guidance that the IESG would find useful in selecting the IANA Experts for these new registries.

A. Not applicable

(19) Describe reviews and automated checks performed by the Document Shepherd to validate sections of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc.

A. Not applicable.