Skip to main content

Shepherd writeup
draft-kelsey-intarea-mesh-link-establishment

(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?

i) Type of RFC Requested: Proposed Standard
ii) It is the proper type of RFC because the document describes a 
communications protocol
iii) The type of RFC is indicated in the title page header

(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:

Relevant content can frequently be found in the abstract and/or 
introduction of the document. If not, this may be an indication that 
there are deficiencies in the abstract or introduction.

MLE is a protocol for link-layer configuration, including link layer 
addressing, transmit and receive modes, wake/sleep cycles and security.  
Its use in ad hoc mesh networks is complementary to existing IETF 
neighbor discovery protocols, such as IPv6 ND [RFC4861] and NHDP 
[RFC6130].  MLE can be used to configure individual links and to 
distribute configuration values that are shared across a network.  
Per-link configuration uses one-hop messages with link-local addresses. 
Network-wide configuration uses multicasts and requires some form of 
multi-hop multicast forwarding.  MLE resolves the issue of determining 
two-way link quality between nodes in a lossy network (e.g. wireless) by 
allowing a node to periodically multicast an estimate of the quality of 
its links.  This allows a node to determine if it has a usable link to a 
neighbor without first configuring that link.

Working Group Summary:

Was there anything in WG process that is worth noting? For example, was 
there controversy about particular points or were there decisions where 
the consensus was particularly rough?

Due to the general nature of the protocol and its application to link 
layer technology, there was no particular WG which suited the draft. It 
has been discussed in the 6lowpan and roll WG mailing lists. The only 
controversy notable was the use of UDP as the base protocol for MLE. 
Some suggested ICMPv6 would be more appropriate tied to RPL messages, 
however this had the criticism of narrowing the scope of MLE, which has 
been written without any specific IETF protocol in mind.

Document Quality:

Are there existing implementations of the protocol? Have a significant 
number of vendors indicated their plan to implement the specification? 
Are there any reviewers that merit special mention as having done a 
thorough review, e.g., one that resulted in important changes or a 
conclusion that the document had no substantive issues? If there was a 
MIB Doctor, Media Type or other expert review, what was its course 
(briefly)? In the case of a Media Type review, on what date was the 
request posted?

There are numerous existing implementations of the protocol as it is 
currently being adopted and tested by ZigBee Alliance members involved 
in the development of the ZigBee IP stack. There are currently 7 
independent vendors implemeting the protocol. Thomas Clausen has 
performed a thorough review of draft version 02 and his comments have 
been incorporated in version 03 onwards.

Personnel:

Who is the Document Shepherd? Who is the Responsible Area Director?

The Document Shepherd is Robert Cragie. The Responsible Area Director is 
Ted Lemon.

(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 Document Shepherd and Responsible Area Director have reviewed the 
draft document and have been party to the interoperability testing 
events undertaken by the vendors to confirm interoperable implementation 
of the protocol and its fitness for purpose.

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

The document has been submitted for review on all relevant WG mailing 
lists and has had discussion. It has also been through practical 
implementations subject to continuous review by the implementors, who 
have fed back comments to the author, who has subsequently incorporated 
the comments into the latest draft.

(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.

As the protocol describes message security, the Document Shepherd 
recommends the document is reviewed by the Security area.

(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.

The Document Shepherd/Responsible Area Director has not indicated any 
specific concerns or issues with the document.

(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?

The authors have confirmed that there are no IPR disclosures required 
for full conformance with BCP 78 and BCP 79.

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

There are no IPR disclosures that reference the document.

(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 interested community as a whole understands and agrees with the 
document, proven by implementation.

(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.

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

There are no error and no warnings from a verbose nits check of 
draft-04. There are comments related to normative references; these 
references (AES, CCM and IEEE802154) are correctly stated as normative.

(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 required.

(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 or are otherwise in an unclear state? If such normative 
references exist, what is the plan for their completion?

All normative references are in a clear state.

(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 are three documents which the nits checker picked up as possible 
downward references:

-- Possible downref: Non-RFC (?) normative reference: ref. 'AES'
-- Possible downref: Non-RFC (?) normative reference: ref. 'CCM'
-- Possible downref: Non-RFC (?) normative reference: ref. 'IEEE802154'

All these are complete standard specifications within their appropriate 
standards authority (NIST and IEEE)

(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 affect 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 clearly identifies the requirements for MLE:

* Additional UDP service name and port assignment
* Security Suites
* Command Types
* TLV Types
* Network Parameters

(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.

MLE requires a Service Name and Port Number that requires Expert Review.

(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.

There are no parts of the document written in a formal language.
Back