Shepherd writeup
draft-ietf-roll-efficient-npdao-18

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?

Document is submitted as proposed standard: The document describes a protocol that supports a more rapid establishment of paths in the RPL DODAG, when a links fails frequently or permanently.

(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:

(2a) Technical Summary

This document describes the problems associated with NPDAO messaging
 used in RPL for route invalidation and signaling changes to improve
 route invalidation efficiency.

(2b) Working Group Summary

Once the usefulness of the document became clear to the WG, the solution was accepted as valid.
Major arguments were conducted about the clearness of the text, and unnecessary actions in the protocol that are removed.
  
(2c) Document Quality

A pilot is implemented for a smart meter based solution which is deployed with Huawei's Enterprise Access Router (AR-series). 
The meter hardware is currently based on STM32F415 MCU with Atmel's 802.15.4 transceivers.
No new media types are requested. A new RPL control packet is added.

(2d) Personnel

Document Shepherd is Peter van der Stok.
Responsible Area Director is Alvaro Retana.

(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 shepherd has reviewed the document twice: (i) to get terminology simplified , correct and aligned with earlier documents,
(ii) to point out under-specified parts in the protocol, such as time-out values, multiple choices that were not addressed.

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

The shepherd thinks that reviews have been adequate for this document by the right persons.

(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.

The document is RPL centered on a very specific aspect: path creation.
No strong dependencies on other related technology areas are present.

(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 specific concerns exist.

(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.

Two IPR disclosures are filed.
All authors have confirmed that all necessary IPR disclosures have been filed.

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

Two IPR disclosures contain the standard disclosure text that is employed for IETF RFCs.

(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?   

All active members of the WG understand the draft and agree with it.

(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.) 

No extreme discontent was shown; no appeals are expected.

(11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this
document. (See https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts
Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be
thorough.

All nits have been removed.

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

No formal reviews such as MIB doctor, media type or URI type are required.

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

All references within this document have 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?

There are no normative references to documents in progress.

(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. 

No downward references exist.

(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.

The publication of this document will not change the status of any existing RFCs.

(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).

The IANA consideration section allocates new ICMPv6 RPL control codes to RPL DCO and DCO-ack messages.

(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.

No new IANA registries are specified.

(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.

No sections of the document contain text written in a formal language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc.
Back