Shepherd writeup

´╗┐Write Up: draft-ietf-roll-mpl-parameter-configuration-04

* Responsible Area Director: Alvaro Retana
* Document Shepherd: Ines Robles

1. Summary

	This draft defines a way to configure a parameter set of MPL (Multicast 
Protocol for Low power  and Lossy Networks) via DHCPv6 option.  MPL has a 
set of parameters to control its behavior, and the  parameter set is often 
configured as a network-wide parameter because the parameter set should be 
identical for each MPL forwarder in an MPL domain.  Using the MPL Parameter 
Configuration Option defined in this document, a network can be configured 
with a single set of MPL parameter easily.

	The Intended RFC status is Proposed Standard, because this document 
defines a way to distribute parameter sets for MPL forwarders as a DHCPv6 option.

2. Review and Consensus

Version 08 addresses the comments done in the IESG review.

Int-Dir review was done, ticket #171 created for this.
IESG comments and IANA should be addressed in version 06.
Gen ART, Secdir and AD comments were addressed in version 06. A reference to rfc6422 (suggested by AD) is not present in version 06

	This document was reviewed in ROLL and DHC WGs, DHC Chair Bernie
Volz reviewed the document and was ok with the proposed option format. 
During Last Call there were no comments gotten for this draft, but got 
consensus in previous threads.

3. Intellectual Property

	Yusuke Doi and Matthew Gilmore confirmed on 05-01-2014 for version 
03, version 04 fixed some typos and add IANA information.  

4. Other Points

Note any downward references (see RFC 3967) and whether they appear in 
the DOWNREF Registry (, 
as these need to be announced during Last Call.

	[I-D.ietf-roll-trickle-mcast] is as Normative Reference, which have 
new issues that are being addressed by the authors.

Check the IANA Considerations for clarity and against the checklist below. 
Note any registrations that require expert review, and say what's been done 
to have them reviewed before last call.  Note any new registries that are created 
by this document and briefly describe the working group's discussion that led 
to the selection of the allocation procedures and policies (see RFC 5226) that 
were selected for them. If any new registries require expert review for future allocations, 
provide any public guidance that the IESG would find useful in selecting the designated 
experts (private comments may be sent to the Area Director separately).

	IANA Section references the specific registry and table

Explain anything else that the IESG might need to know when reviewing this document. 
If there is significant discontent with the document or the process, which might result 
in appeals to the IESG or especially bad feelings in the working group, explain this in 
a separate email message to the responsible Area Director.

	Not apply.

Idnits executed, no relevant comments.

Checking references for intended status: Proposed Standard

     (See RFCs 3967 and 4897 for information about using normative references
     to lower-maturity documents in RFCs)

     No issues found here.

     Summary: 0 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 0 warnings (==), 1 comment (--).

Have all references within this document been identified as either normative or informative, and 
does the shepherd agree with how they have been classified?