Shepherd writeup
draft-ietf-roll-useofrplinfo-44

Shepherd document for ietf-roll-useofrplinfo; 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 prescribes the headers to be used when a packet travels between a RPL network and a non-RPL network.

(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 looks at different data flows through LLN (Low-Power
   and Lossy Networks) where RPL (IPv6 Routing Protocol for Low-Power
   and Lossy Networks) is used to establish routing.  The document
   enumerates the cases where RFC 6553, RFC 6554 and IPv6-in-IPv6
   encapsulation is required.  This analysis provides the basis on which
   to design efficient compression of these headers.  Additionally, this
   document updates the RFC 6553 by adding a change to the RPL Option Type and adds a Flag to the set of flags specified in RFC 6550. The draft-ietf-roll-unaware-leaves draft has necessitated additional text to align useofrplinfo with the header lay-outs proposed in the unaware leaves draft  and necessitated the removal of version -31 from the RFC editor queue. In the current version -39, the earlier hop-by-hop encapsulation/decapsulation within the RPL mesh have been modified, significantly simplifying the useofrplinfo specification.
These changes are reflected in Figure 7, Section 7.1.4, Section 7.2.1, Sections 7.2.3-4, Sections 7.3.2-4, Figure 22, Section 8.2.1 and Sections 8.3.1-2.

(2b) Working Group Summary
There was clear consensus in the ROLL WG that this document was needed. 
The extensive subject, involving many details, has led to lengthy discussions about terminology, and a verification of the full coverage of all cases. The later 
(2c) Document Quality
The document is of special value to the the 6tisch WG.
There are no known implementations by manufacturers, but comments have been incorporated from people who needed to address a subset of the  cases discussed in the document.
The drafts ietf-anima-bootstrapping-keyinfra and The related draft-ietf-roll-unaware-leaves draft -6tisch-dtsecurity-secure-join rely on the cases discussed in this document.
No media type is created. Extensive discussions with 6man occurred because the document was edited at the same time that RGFC8200 was prepared
(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 this document twice: Once to get terminology and structure correct and second time to look at security aspects and 6man conformance. This version 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 shepherd has no concerns about breadth and depth of document.

(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 WGLC included the 6man WG. Brian carpenter was kind enough to express conformance with 6man guidelines.

(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. 
There are absolutely no concerns about the validity of the document. However, the number of uses cases tends to overwhelm the reader who is usually interested in two or three cases out of the 24 discussed cases.

(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. 
Each author confirmed that no known IPR is related to this document.

(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document?
If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR
disclosures.
No IPR disclosure been filed.

(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 most active part of the WG stands solidly behind this document.
In the long process, all persons which are concerned by the issues solved by this document, have discussed the document on the Mailing List. 
 
(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 appeal or extreme discontent has been expressed.

(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.
The document has passed all the nit checks.

(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review
criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.
No formal review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews are relevant.

(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. 
There is one downward normative reference to RFC 7416.

(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 considerations section, updates the registration made in [RFC6553] Destination Options and Hop-by-Hop Options registry from 0x63 to 0x23; and updates the DODAG configurations option Flag.

(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 created.

(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