(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 requests the Proposed Standard track. This is appropriate
given it requests a media type allocation and creation of a registry.
(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 defines the standard media type used by the Content
Delivery Network Interconnection (CDNI) protocol suite, including the
registration procedure and recommended usage of the required payload-
type parameter .
Working Group Summary
There is a strong consensus in support of this document.
Document Quality
The document is very brief as it only requests allocation of a single media
type and creation of a corresponding payload-
type parameter registry. It has been reviewed by multiple active members of
the working group. It has also been reviewed by former AD Jon Peterson.
Personnel
Document Shepherd: Francois Le Faucheur
Responsible Area Director: 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 did a review of the document and feels it 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 does not have any concern about the level of reviews performed.
(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 document does not require any particular reviews, other than for it
main purpose of media-type allocation.
(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 shepherd does not have any concern or issue with this 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 single author has confirmed the above.
(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 have been filed referencing that 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?
There is strong consensus in the working group on this document. It has
been discussed clearly with many supporting the corresponding approach and
none objecting to it.
(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.)
Noone has threaten to appeal. In fact none has even objected.
(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.
All the nits identified by the shepherd have been addressed in the recently
submitted version.
(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review
criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.
The document only requires review for media type allocation. A first level
of review has been conducted within the working group and we'd like a
complete review by IESG.
(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 already RFC.
(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 no downward reference
(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.
Publication of this document will not change the status of any document.
This si correctly identified in the title page header.
(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 does not define any protocol extension and is all about IANA
considerations. The newly created IANA registry includes a detailed
specification of the initial contents for the registry, allocations
procedures for future registrations are defined, and a reasonable name for
the new registry has been suggested
(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.
The one new registry requires Expert Review. The IANA expert needs to
understand the CDNI framework and interfaces. CDNI working group chairs, or
the document author, could act as expert for the 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.
This is not applicable