Shepherd writeup
rfc7548-05

Document: draft-ietf-opsawg-coman-use-cases 
WG: OpsAWG. 
Shepherd: Warren Kumari

This version of the writeup is dated 24 February 2012.

[ Note: This document is a companion document to
draft-ietf-opsawg-coman-probstate-reqs. They should probably progress
together. The shepherd writeup is also very similar...


(1)Informational - this document is an informational
problem statement and requirements document.

(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:

Constrained devices (limited CPU, memory, and power resources) can be
connected to a network. This network may also be constrained or 
challenged (unreliable or lossy channels, wireless technologies with
limited bandwidth and a dynamic topology). This may make traditional
network management a poor fit for these networks. This document
outlines use cases for a network with constrained devices. 

Document Quality:

This document provides an overview and introduction to constrained
networks / networks with constrained devices. It discusses where they
are typically used, and some of the challenges in managing them.
 Special thanks to Thomas Watteyne and Pascal Thubert for 
arranging additional review.

Personnel:

Warren Kumari will be the document shepherd, Benoit Claise will be the
AD.

(3) Briefly describe the review of this document that was performed by
the Document Shepherd:
The DS followed the progression of the document through the working
group process, and reviewed the document. 

(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or
breadth of the reviews that have been performed?
Nope. During the Working Group Last Call the chairs of 6TiSCH and 6LO
asked that the WGLC be extended to allow their WG participants to 
review the document, and so we extend it by a few weeks. The feedback
from these WGs was positive, and we are counting it in the consensus.


(5) Do portions of the document need review from a particular or from
broader perspective?
Nope.

(6) Describe any specific concerns or issues that the Document
Shepherd has with this document.
None.

(7) Has each author confirmed all appropriate IPR disclosures?
Yes.


(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document?
No.


(9) How solid is the WG consensus behind this document?
There is strong consensus from a small group, and good feedback
from 6TiSCH and 6LO. 

(10) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme
discontent?
Nope. Not at all.

(11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this
document.
No issues found here.

(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review
criteria.
No formal material in the document.


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

(14) Are there normative references to documents that are not ready
for advancement? 
No normative references exist.

(15) Are there downward normative references references? 
No normative references exist.


(16) Will publication of this document change the status of any
existing RFCs?
Nope.

(17) Describe the Document Shepherd's review of the IANA
considerations section.
No action required (clearly stated)


(18) List any new IANA registries that require Expert Review for
future allocations.
None. 

(19) Describe reviews and automated checks performed by the Document
Shepherd to validate sections of the document written in a formal
language.
None.
Back