Skip to main content

Shepherd writeup
rfc8917-09

This version is dated 1 November 2019.

(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?

   The authors request publication as an Informational RFC. The draft registers
   a new U-NAPTR application service tag. The registration policy for that
   registry requires an RFC of any type.

(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

  This document adds the LoST-Validation service tag to the S-NAPTR Application
  Service Tag IANA registry.  This tag is used by clients of the
  Location-to-Service Translation Protocol (LoST). The use of this tag for
  service discovery allows the separation of a  LoST location validation
  service from the LoST mapping/routing service, as contemplated by the NENA i3
  architecture.

Working Group Summary

   This document has not been discussed in a working group. It has had some
   brief discussion on the ART area mailing list.
  LoST (RFC 5222) was originally specified by the ECRIT working group. (Update:
  The authors posted the draft to the ECRIT mailing list on 21 February, 2020.
  Additionally, the IETF LC was cross-posted to ECRIT and ART).

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, YANG 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?

The service tag is expected to be used by LoST products designed to be used
with the NENA i3 architecture. The service tag registration was reviewed on the
ART area mailing list. That review resulted in editorial comments from Ted
Hardie.

Personnel

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

   The shepherd is Ben Campbell. The responsible AD is Barry Leiba.

(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 checked nits, reviewed the document in detail, checked
registration policies for the affected registry, as well as refreshed his
memory on LoST (RFC 5222). He made editorial comments that have been addressed.
 Since this draft is expected to be AD sponsored, the shepherd leaves the
readiness-for-publication decision to the sponsoring AD.

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

The shepherd would have liked to see review in the the ECRIT working group,
since this document is related to RFC 5222, which was a product of ECRIT.
However, the shepherd recognizes that ECRIT may not have sufficient
participation at this time to perform an in-depth review, and that this is a
fairly simple service tag registration. (Update: The draft was posted to the
ECRIT list on 21 February).

(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.

Please see the answer to question number 4. Otherwise, the document received
review on the ART list in the context of registration of a DNS S-NAPTR
application service tag. The shepherd does not believe the document needs
review from other perspectives.

(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 shepherd recommends that the ART ADs consider whether the LoST service
split enabled by this this registration and contemplated by the NENA i3
architecture needs additional specification (perhaps in another document) or
creates backwards-compatibility issues with RFC 5222 based LoST clients.
(Update: Version 5 adds a section on backwards compatibility.)

(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.

  Yes

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

There are no current disclosures.

(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?

The consensus would best be characterized as from a small group of individuals,
with others being silent. However, this is a short IANA registration document.
It concerns emergency calling services, which has only a small community of
experts in the IETF (a substantial fraction of which are authors). The shepherd
would have been surprised to see wide-spread participation.

(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.

IDNits gives the draft a clean bill of health.

(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such
as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.

The shepherd is not aware of any formal review requirements that would apply to
this draft beyond the normal IETF consensus process.

(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?

No.

(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.

No.

(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.

The draft does not currently change the status of any existing RFC.

(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 8126).

The shepherd reviewed the IANA considerations against the body of the draft and
the registration policy of the affected registry. The affected registry is
clearly identified. There are no newly created registries.

(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.

There are no newly created 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, YANG modules, etc.

The draft does not use formal languages.

(20) If the document contains a YANG module, has the module been checked with
any of the recommended validation tools
(https://trac.ietf.org/trac/ops/wiki/yang-review-tools) for syntax and
formatting validation? If there are any resulting errors or warnings, what is
the justification for not fixing them at this time? Does the YANG module comply
with the Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA) as specified in
RFC8342?

The draft does not contain a YANG module.
Back