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?

<response to (1)>
a. Informational; 
b. This document provide engineering advice without specifying any protocol features; 
c. Yes. This type information has been indicated in the title page header. 
</response to (1)>

(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:

<response to (2)>

Technical Summary

  This document describes challenges associated with securing smart object
  devices in constrained implementations and environments.  It includes a
  number of guidelines for implementers to use proper security protocols and 
  tradeoffs needed for certain applications, all steming from the hands-on experiences.  

Working Group Summary

  This document has been well received by the working group.  During the first WGLC in Feb., 2017,
  a well-known security expert has provided thorough review and comments which prosponed the shepherd to IESG, but it 
  helped the document mature better.  It was WGLCed again in July of 2017, the consensus of which has been confirmed.  

Document Quality
  The authors of the document write this document all based on their hands-on 
  experience, which is a good model of IETF.  There is already running code. 
  Hannes Tschofenig, as a security expert, has provided a thorough review of a early version.  
  The most updated version has reflected his comments. 


  Zhen Cao is the document shepherd. Suresh Krishnan is the responsible AD. 
</response to (2)>

(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.

<response to (3)>
The Document Shepherd has thoroughly reviewed through the document and considers it ready for publication.
</response to (3)>

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

<response to (4)>
The document has been submitted for review on the lwig WG mailing lists 
and has had a small amount of discussion. Feedback comments have been incorporated.
</response to (4)>

(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.

<response to (5)>
The Document Shepherd think that he document requires review from IoT directoriate, 
which is a default step for any documents from this working group. 
</response to (5)>

(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.

<response to (6)>
The Document Shepherd has no specific concerns or issues with the document.
</response to (6)>

(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.

<response to (7)>
The authors have confirmed that there are no IPR disclosures required for full conformance with BCP 78 and BCP 79.
</response to (7)>

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

<response to (8)>
There are no IPR disclosures that reference the document.
</response to (8)>

(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?   

<response to (9)>
It has been discussed in recent meetings and on the mailing list therefore 
the conclusion is that the WG understands and agrees with the document.
</response to (9)>

(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.) 

<response to (10)>
</response to (10)>

(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

<response to (11)>
Not done yet at Sept. 29, 2017.  
</response to (11)>

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

<response to (12)>
No formal review required.
</response to (12)>

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

<response to (13)>
</response to (13)>

(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?

<response to (14)>
There are no normative references in this document. 
</response to (14)>

(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. 

<response to (15)>
</response to (15)>

(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.

<response to (16)>
</response to (16)>

(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).

<response to (17)>
There are no IANA considerations.
</response to (17)>

(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.

<response to (18)>
</response to (18)>

(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.

<response to (19)>
There are no parts of the document written in a formal language.
</response to (19)>