Shepherd writeup
draft-ietf-6tisch-enrollment-enhanced-beacon-06

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) This is a intended as Proposed Standard, as indicated in the boiler plate and consistent with the WG document page.
This is needed since the doc specifies new frame formats.

(2) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document Announcement

Technical Summary

   In TSCH mode of IEEE802.15.4, as described by [RFC8180],
   opportunities for broadcasts are limited to specific times and
   specific channels.  Nodes in a TSCH network typically frequently send
   Enhanced Beacon (EB) frames to announce the presence of the network.
   This document provides a mechanism by which small details critical
   for new nodes (pledges) and long sleeping nodes may be carried within
   the Enhanced Beacon.

Working Group Summary

This is a simple and well-understood specification. Went through the WG without hassle, raised very few comments actually.

Document Quality

Most of the reviewers were 802.15.4 TSCH experts and the quality is really good.
We have not seen implementation plans, but that should come since this is both simple and needful.

Personnel

 	 Document Shepherd: Pascal Thubert
 	Responsible Area  Director: Suresh Krishnan

(3) Briefly describe the review of this document that was performed by 
the Document Shepherd

 	The shepherd participated and encouraged discussions in that topic. Also produced the last review before WGLC which lead to -02.

(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or
breadth of the reviews that have been performed?

There were little reviews but hen again this is just packaging a few needful information. The needed information was heavily discussed at WG meetings.


(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 such thing

(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? 

No such thing

(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

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

No filed IPR disclosure

(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?   

	The were no heavy discussion but that’s understandable when basically adding a TLV to an existing format.

(10) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme 
discontent? 

No such thing


(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.

	Downref to RFC 8137 to be validated by IESG.

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

No such thing

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

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?

Both RFC-to-be normative refs are already submitted for publication

(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. 

	Downref to RFC 8137 to be validated by IESG.

(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 such thing

(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 8126).

	A IANA request is made as desired for an entry in an existing registry

(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 spec does not introduce a new registry, nor does it modify the allocation rules in an existing registry.

(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.

	Just the ID Nits
Back