PROTO questionnaire for: draft-campbell-art-rfc5727-update-02
Date: November 25, 2015
(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?
This document is to be published as a BCP. It is an update to an existing BCP (RFC 5727), thus it is a proper type and it as indicated as such in the title page.
(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:
RFC 5727 defines several processes for the Real-time Applications
and Infrastructure (RAI) area. These processes include the evolution
of the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) and related protocols, as
well as the operation of the DISPATCH and SIPCORE working groups. This
document updates RFC 5727 to allow flexibility for the area and
working group structure, while preserving the SIP change processes.
It also generalizes the DISPATCH working group processes so that
they can be easily adopted by other working groups.
Working Group Summary
This is effectively an ART area document, with some specificity to the process that’s been followed by the DISPATCH WG since 2009. However, the process/model could also be applied to other areas. The document was discussed on the DISPATCH WG mailing list.
This document effectively describes the process/model that has been used in the DISPATCH WG since 2009. Mary Barnes is the Document Shepherd. Spencer Dawkins is the Responsible Area Director.
(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 has thoroughly reviewed this version of the document and deems it ready for publication.
(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed?
There are no concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews.
(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.
(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 interested community has discussed those issues and has indicated that it still wishes to advance the document, detail those concerns here.
The document shepherd has no concerns.
(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 area directors are authors of this document that merely captures a process, thus no IPR is applicable.
(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If so, summarize any discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures.
There is no IPR associated with this document.
(9) How solid is the consensus of the interested community behind this document? Does it represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others being silent, or does the interested community as a whole understand and agree with it?
There were no concerns raised around the publication of this document (nor the process described therein).
(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.)
(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.
The warnings are with regards to references that informative, so that’s a non-issue. There is an error as RFC 3727, which has been obsoleted by RFC 5727, is referenced but that is there for historical/informational reasons.
(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.
No formal reviews are required.
(13) Have all references within this document 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?
(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.
(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 interested community considers it unnecessary.
Yes, this document updates RFC 5727 as indicated on the Title page.
(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).
This document has no IANA considerations.
(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.
This document defines no new IANA registries..
(19) Describe reviews and automated checks performed by to validate sections of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc.
No automated checks were necessary for this document.