Shepherd writeup

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) 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?

Informational. The document supplies terminology and is not a protocol 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:

Technical Summary

   The Internet Protocol Suite is increasingly used on small devices
   with severe constraints, creating constrained node networks.  This
   document provides a number of basic terms that have turned out to be
   useful in the standardization work for constrained environments.
Working Group Summary

  The document originally was extracted as a stable part of the LWIG guidance document that 
the WG considered to be immediately useful.  After extraction, additional terminology was 
added on energy/power availability and usage.  This document was finished collectively by a 
number of people who worked in the constrained network area.  The WGLC was conducted on 
April 7 for two weeks. Five supports have been expressed on the mailing list, with positive 

Document Quality

  Are there existing implementations of the protocol? Have a 
  significant number of vendors indicated their plan to 
  implement the specification? Are there any reviewers that 
  merit special mention as having done a thorough review, 
  e.g., one that resulted in important changes or a 
  conclusion that the document had no substantive issues? If 
  there was a MIB Doctor, Media Type or other expert review, 
  what was its course (briefly)? In the case of a Media Type 
  review, on what date was the request posted?
  This is a document that summarizes the terminologies that has been and will be used for 
people and groups that are working on constrained networks. This is generally considered to be a 
useful document for people to refer when they would like to find the definition of certain terms.  
Experts from Philips, Orange, Ericsson reviewed the document, from the time when it still was an 
individual document. Several wording details in the draft before the WGLC had been discussed 
and the draft was updated to incorporate these changes.  


  Who is the Document Shepherd? Who is the Responsible Area
  Zhen Cao ( is the Document Shepherd. 
  Brian Haberman is the Responsible AD. 

(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 document shepherd reviewed the draft before its adoption as an IETF work. Three aspects 
were reviewed. First, the definitions and descriptions of the terminologies, for example, 
constrained networks and constrained node networks. Second, the classifications of different 
types of contrained devices, this section has reflected the discussion on the mailing list and now 
is used by many drafts. Third, some editorial changes had been posted to the mailing list and the 
document had been updated to accommodate the changes. . The document shepherd believes 
that this document is ready for publication. 

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

The Document Shepherd thinks that the review within the group is thorough and comprehensive. 
While there is considerable overlap in people, explicit review has not yet been performed in 
other related groups, for example, core, roll, 6lowpan. 

(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.


(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.

(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 (all three on Friday, April 26, 2013).

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


(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 WG understand and agree with it.  During the WGLC, the WG received five messages from 
key participants from the group and all of them supported it moving forward. On several 
meetings before, the chairs asked for hum for support of its merits as a right directions, and clear 
conconsus was received. 

(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.) 


(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

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


(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?


(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. 


(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.


(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).


(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.


(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.