Shepherd writeup
draft-ietf-core-hop-limit
## Shepherd Writeup
The presence of Constrained Application Protocol (CoAP) proxies may lead to
infinite forwarding loops, which is undesirable. To prevent and detect such
loops, this document specifies the Hop-Limit CoAP option. The new hop-limit
option is elective, safe to forward, not part of a cache and not-repeatable and
gets decremented after every hop.
This draft is the solution to a problem raised by the DOTs WG
(https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-dots-signal-channel-37). It is referred
as a normative reference there.
The option has already been implemented in the proprietary NCC Group DOTS.
### Summary
Document Shepherd: Jaime Jiménez <jaime@iki.fi>
Area Director: Alexey Melnikov <aamelnikov@fastmail.fm>
The presence of Constrained Application Protocol (CoAP) proxies may lead to
infinite forwarding loops, which is undesirable. To prevent and detect such
loops, this document specifies the Hop-Limit CoAP option.
The document is intended for Standards Track.
### Review and Consensus
The document has gone through multiple expert reviews and has been discussed on
multiple IETF meetings.
### Intellectual Property
Each author has stated that they do not have direct, personal knowledge of any
IPR related to this document. I am not aware of any IPR discussion about this
document on the CoRE WG.
### Other Points
The document creates a new CoAP response code (5.08 which is unassigned) and a
new Option Number, we have had reviewers verify both.
### Checklist
- [x] Does the shepherd stand behind the document and think the document is
ready for publication? - [x] Is the correct RFC type indicated in the title
page header? - [x] Is the abstract both brief and sufficient, and does it stand
alone as a brief summary? - [x] Is the intent of the document accurately and
adequately explained in the introduction? - [x] Have all required formal
reviews (MIB Doctor, Media Type, URI, etc.) been requested and/or completed? -
[x] Has the shepherd performed automated checks -- idnits (see
http://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts Checklist), checks of
BNF rules, XML code and schemas, MIB definitions, and so on -- and determined
that the document passes the tests? - [x] Has each author stated that their
direct, personal knowledge of any IPR related to this document has already been
disclosed, in conformance with BCPs 78 and 79? - [x] Have all references within
this document been identified as either normative or informative, and does the
shepherd agree with how they have been classified? - [x] Are all normative
references made to documents that are ready for advancement and are otherwise
in a clear state? - [x] If publication of this document changes the status of
any existing RFCs, are those RFCs listed on the title page header, and are the
changes listed in the abstract and discussed (explained, not just mentioned) in
the introduction? - [x] If this is a "bis" document, have all of the errata
been considered? `Does not apply`
**IANA** Considerations:
- [x] Are the IANA Considerations clear and complete? Remember that IANA have
to understand unambiguously what's being requested, so they can perform the
required actions. - [x] Are all protocol extensions that the document makes
associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries? - [x] Are all
IANA registries referred to by their exact names (check them in
http://www.iana.org/protocols/ to be sure)? - [x] Have you checked that any
registrations made by this document correctly follow the policies and
procedures for the appropriate registries? - [x] For registrations that require
expert review (policies of Expert Review or Specification Required), have you
or the working group had any early review done, to make sure the requests are
ready for last call? - [x] For any new registries that this document creates,
has the working group actively chosen the allocation procedures and policies
and discussed the alternatives? - [x] Have reasonable registry names been
chosen (that will not be confused with those of other registries), and have the
initial contents and valid value ranges been clearly specified?
Back