Shepherd writeup

    (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 is a intended as proposed standard, and the document indictates Intended status: Standards 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:

       This specification defines the 6TiSCH Minimal Scheduling Function
       (MSF).  This Scheduling Function describes both the behavior of a
       node when joining the network, and how the communication schedule is
       managed in a distributed fashion.  MSF builds upon the 6TiSCH
       Operation Sublayer Protocol (6P) and the Minimal Security Framework
       for 6TiSCH. Other SFs may be defined in the future.

    Working Group Summary:

    The group work on Scheduling Functions (SF) for a long time, with work such as SF0 and ASF. The best ideas were merged in this simplified version. The methid was implemented and implementation feedback helped refining the details of it.

    Document Quality:

    There is at least one implementation by INRIA (Tengfei Chang).
    Tengfei reported on experimentations at IETF 106.
    There's also an implementation in te Kon Tiki simulator.
    Yasuyuki Tanaka performed extensive reviews as part of his work on the simulator.


    Document Shepherd: Pascal Thubert
    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.

    The shepherd performed an in depth review in parallel with an additional one by Yasuyuki Tanaka. The security section was enhanced, and the fact that all parents are managed individually was clarified. V-09 is the main outcome, with additions in v-10.

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

    No concern. The document appears ready.

    (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? 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.

    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?

    All the authors responded that there's no IPR.

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

    There is a disclosure by Cisco ( that was discussed in the thread "IPR Disclosure Cisco's Statement about IPR related to draft-chang-6tisch-msf". There was no opposition. Note that Cisco has IPR on key elements of 6TiSCH so this does not change the situation in any remarkable way.

    (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 core of the 6TiSCH participants reviewed and supported the 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.)

    No such thing

    (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.

    Nothing apart downrefs discussed below

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

    No such need

    (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?

    Nothing disquieting, on the contrary publication will help move cluster 130 on.
    This draft is actually already expected in C130 for a X-ref with the 6TiSCH Architecture.

    One reference, ietf-6tisch-enrollment-enhanced-beacon is passed WGLC.
    They other references are already queued at RFC editor in MISSREF for this and other drafts.

    (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.

    The NITs tool found one DOWNREF to be sorted out with A-D.
    This is the 6TiSCH architecture that was downgraded to INFO from an initial STD target.
    Interestingly RFC 7554 is also a DOWNREF, not caught by the tool. I asked the authors to move to informational references since it does not appear to be used normatively.

    (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).

    IANA section checked, the proposed addition in an existing subregistry is correctly documented and matches the registration procedure.

    (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.

    No added (sub) 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, YANG modules, etc.

    No such thing

    (20) If the document contains a YANG module, has the module been checked with any of the recommended validation tools ( for syntax and formatting validation? If there are any resulting errors or warnings, what is the justification for not fixing them at this time? Does the YANG module comply with the Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA) as specified in RFC8342?

    No such thing