(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?
A. draft-ietf-6lo-nfc-10 draft is a 'standards track' document. The intended status is indicated
in the document header. Since it is defining ipv6-over NFC adaptation layer, it is 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:
Near field communication (NFC) is a set of standards for smartphones
and portable devices to establish radio communication with each other
by touching them together or bringing them into proximity, usually no
more than 10 cm. The NFC technology has been widely implemented and available
in mobile phones, laptop computers, and many other devices. This
document describes how IPv6 is transmitted over NFC using 6LowPAN
Considering the potential for exponential growth in the number of
heterogeneous air interface technologies, NFC would be widely used as
one of the other air interface technologies, such as Bluetooth Low
Energy (BT-LE), Wi-Fi, and so on. Each of the heterogeneous air
interface technologies has its own characteristics, which cannot be
covered by the other technologies, so various kinds of air interface
technologies would co-exist together. Therefore, it is required for
them to communicate with each other. Running IPv6 over the various low
power L2 technologies with the modified 6lowpan stack ensures interoperability
among the devices with various heterogeneous air interfaces.
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?
A. This document has been revised several times based on working group comments. It has been reviewed by
several experienced 6lo working group members including Pascal Thubert and Dave Thaler who have been
designated reviewers of this document. It has has also received shepherd's comments and went through two
WGLC ( one short and one regular one).
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 has been reviewed and discussed by many 6lo experts in the WG including Pascal Thubert, Carsten Bormann,
Dave Thaler, Samita Chakrabarti, Gabriel Montenegro, James Woodyatt, Alex Petrescue, Michael Richardson.
An implementation of 6lo-NFC exists and they participated on a 6lo plugtests.
The document effort is also socialized with NFC-Forum and they are well aware this document.
Who is the Document Shepherd? Who is the Responsible Area Director?
Document Shepherd: Carles Gomez, 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.
A. Document shepherd has reviewed the -09 version of the document and provided comments. The -10
version of 6lo-nfc document is ready for publication.
(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been
A. The document is ready for IESG review.
(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
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. It has been reviewed by a number of WG members and the shepherd. It is ready to advance.
(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. An IPR Disclosure has been filed and recorded in IETF page
(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If so, summarize any WG discussion and
conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures.
A. Yes. There is no objection at the WG about the IPR filed for the document.
(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 working group as a whole understands and agrees with the progress of this document.
(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 http://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough;
this check needs to be thorough.
No issues found.
(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?
(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.
No. This document will not update any base 6lo documents or 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).
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.(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?
A. Not Applicable