The RObust Header Compression (ROHC) Framework
draft-ietf-rohc-rfc4995bis-03

[Ballot comment]
The implementation and update rate of 4995 has not been exactly stelar. Replacing it with a new RFC is likely to make this worse. This fixes one tiny bug in the spec - I think it would be much better to do this with an errata particularly since many implementation if not all did the right thing in the implementation (vs what bug in spec said)

[Ballot discuss]
8.  IANA Considerations

  Following the policies outlined in [RFC2434], the IANA policy for
  assigning new values for the profile identifier shall be
  Specification Required: values and their meanings must be documented

RFC 2434 has been obsolete by RFC 5226. The definition of the "Specification Required" seemed to have changed between 2 documents.
RFC 5226 defines "Specification Required" as implying "Expert Review", while RFC 2434 doesn't include Expert Review.
Can you please clarify what is the IANA registration policy to be used here.

  in an RFC or in some other permanent and readily available reference,
  in sufficient detail that interoperability between independent
  implementations is possible.  In the 8 LSBs, the range 0 to 127 is
  reserved for IETF standard-track specifications; the range 128 to 254
  is available for other specifications that meet this requirement
  (such as Informational RFCs).  The LSB value 255 is reserved for
  future extensibility of the present specification.

[Ballot discuss]
8.  IANA Considerations

  Following the policies outlined in [RFC2434], the IANA policy for
  assigning new values for the profile identifier shall be
  Specification Required: values and their meanings must be documented

RFC 2434 has been obsolete by RFC 5226. The definition of the "Specification Required" seemed to have changed between 2 documents.
RFC 5226 defines "Specification Required" as implying "Expert Review", while RFC 2434 doesn't include Expert Review.
Can you please clarify what is the IANA registration policy to be used here.

  in an RFC or in some other permanent and readily available reference,
  in sufficient detail that interoperability between independent
  implementations is possible.  In the 8 LSBs, the range 0 to 127 is
  reserved for IETF standard-track specifications; the range 128 to 254
  is available for other specifications that meet this requirement
  (such as Informational RFCs).  The LSB value 255 is reserved for
  future extensibility of the present specification.

Document write-up for draft-ietf-rohc-rfc4995bis-01.txt:

(1.a) Who is the Document Shepherd for this document? Has the
Document Shepherd personally reviewed this version of the
document and, in particular, does he or she believe this
version is ready for forwarding to the IESG for publication?

Carl Knutsson is the Document Shepherd. The document has been
personally reviewed by Document Shepherd and is ready to be
published as a Proposed Standard.

(1.b) Has the document had adequate review both from key WG members
and from key non-WG members? Does the Document Shepherd have
any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that
have been performed?

No concerns.

(1.c) Does the Document Shepherd have concerns that the document
needs more review from a particular or broader perspective,
e.g., security, operational complexity, someone familiar with
AAA, internationalization or XML?

No concerns.

(1.d) Does the Document Shepherd have any specific concerns or
issues 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. Has an IPR disclosure related to this document
been filed? If so, please include a reference to the
disclosure and summarize the WG discussion and conclusion on
this issue.

No concerns.

(1.e) 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?

No concerns.

(1.f) 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
entered into the ID Tracker.)

No concerns.

(1.g) Has the Document Shepherd personally verified that the
document satisfies all ID nits? (See the Internet-Drafts Checklist
and http://tools.ietf.org/tools/idnits/). Boilerplate checks are
not enough; this check needs to be thorough. Has the document
met all formal review criteria it needs to, such as the MIB
Doctor, media type and URI type reviews?

Yes and yes.

(1.h) Has the document split its references into normative and
informative? 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
strategy for their completion? Are there normative references
that are downward references, as described in [RFC3967]? If
so, list these downward references to support the Area
Director in the Last Call procedure for them [RFC3967].

Yes. All normative references are ok.

(1.i) Has the Document Shepherd verified that the document IANA
consideration section exists and is consistent with the body
of the document? If the document specifies protocol
extensions, are reservations requested in appropriate IANA
registries? Are the IANA registries clearly identified? If
the document creates a new registry, does it define the
proposed initial contents of the registry and an allocation
procedure for future registrations? Does it suggest a
reasonable name for the new registry? See [RFC5226]. If the
document describes an Expert Review process has Shepherd
conferred with the Responsible Area Director so that the IESG
can appoint the needed Expert during the IESG Evaluation?

The IANA section exist. No new allocations requested.

(1.j) Has the Document Shepherd verified that sections of the
document that are written in a formal language, such as XML
code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc., validate correctly in
an automated checker?

Yes.

(1.k) 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
The document describes the ROHC framework. It obsoletes the old
framework document RFC 4995 and includes two important
updates. ROHC feedback encoding has been corrected to conform
with RFC 3095, the original definition of the ROHC framework,
and a new section describing context initialization for
profile 0x0000 (uncompressed) has been added.

Working Group Summary
This document represents a rough consensus of the working
group. The mismatch in feedback formats that lead to the
creation of this document was discovered during the last
call of RFC 5225.

Document Quality
Implementations of the ROHC protocol specified by this
document are in existence. This document contains corrections
to the ROHC framework document (RFC 4995) and replaces it in
full. This document and its predecessors have received reviews
from both implementers and ROHC experts.