Write Up: draft-ietf-roll-mpl-parameter-configuration-04
* Responsible Area Director: Alvaro Retana
* Document Shepherd: Ines Robles
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 (http://trac.tools.ietf.org/group/iesg/trac/wiki/DownrefRegistry),
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.
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?