(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?
Proposed Standard. This matches the title page header (from -v10 onward).
This RFC specifies a profile for using SCHC (RFC8724) over the LoRaWAN networks: it picks some options and defines some parameters left open in the generic SCHC specification.
(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:
RFC8724 has specified a generic framework for Static Context Header Compression and fragmentation (SCHC), designed with Low Power Wide Area Networks (LPWAN) in mind.
LoRaWAN(R) is one such LPWAN technology.
This document describes parameters and modes of operation for efficiently using RFC8724 over the LoraWAN networks.
Working Group Summary:
There was no particular controversy or rough consensus to be noted.
The authors are affiliated with two companies that have a strong involvement both in the IETF LPWAN WG and in the LoRa Alliance.
Feedback and design considerations were received from other companies primarily involved in the LoRa Alliance.
Information has been delivered both ways between the two SDOs, so we beleive the interests of the LoRa Alliance are well addressed by this document.
There were technical discussions and design iterations regarding features allowing RFC8724 to efficiently operate over quasi-bidirectional links, which were constructive and professional.
Implementations are under way at the companies the authors are affiliated with, and others.
There were thorough reviews of the document done by companies that are prominent members of the LoRa Alliance. This lead to slight adjustements to the protocol to operate efficiently over the quais-bidirectional links of LoRaWAN Class A devices, as mentioned above.
Several WG interim meetings and even a few dedicated telecoference were devoted to discussing this adjustments.
There were several thorough reviews done by the document shepherd, who happens to be a co-author of RFC8724. This lead to the full exploitation of the potential of RFC8724, and even to some litlle changes to RFC8724 itself during its last design stages.
No MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, Media Type or other expert review was done nor needed.
The Sepherd is Dominique Barthel.
The Responsible Area Director is Eric Vincke.
(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.
As a co-author of RFC8724, the Shepherd has constantly monitored and commented on this document, which is the first to specify a profile for RFC8724, from its inception.
In addition, the Shepherd specifically performed a thorough review of draft-ietf-lpwan-schc-over-lorawan-00 (may 2019) and -05 (dec 2019), as well as of all diffs between successive versions of this documents, checking for compliance with RFC8724, completeness and adequation to LoRaWAN.
(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed?
No concern. This document was reviewed by the individuals most intimately familiar with RFC8724 or with LoRaWAN.
(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 review neded.
(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 specific concern or issue.
(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, each author has confirmed.
(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures.
There has been one IPR disclosed regarding this draft. The disclosure happened before the end of the WGLC.
It has not generated any publicly visible discussion.
(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?
This document is the product of the work by a part of the LPWAN WG (the part that has an interest in using SCHC over LoRaWAN), but it has been followed and understood by other parts of the WG, which have interest in using SCHC over different but similar technologies, such as Sigfox.
(10) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent?
No threat of appeal or other extreme discontent
(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.
The ID nit tool run on Aug 1st 2020 on draft version -08 shows 4 ASCII art drawing with lines too long, mostly by just a few characters.
The ID nit tool output does not show the severity of this issue, i.e., if this is considered an Error, a Flaw, a Warning or a Comments.
The shepherd therefore proceeds with the submission, while requesting the authors to rework the offending ASCII art.
(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.
None of content in this document.
(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?
All normative references are to published RFCs
(15) Are there downward normative references (see RFC 3967)? If so, list these downward references to support the Area Director in the Last Call procedure.
No downward normative reference.
(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.
This document does not change the status of any existing RFC.
(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).
This document makes no requirement to IANA.
(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.
This document makes no requirement to IANA.
(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 formal language section in this document.
(20) If the document contains a YANG module, has the module been checked with any of the recommended validation tools (https://trac.ietf.org/trac/ops/wiki/yang-review-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 YANG module in this document.