As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document
Shepherd Write-Up.
Changes are expected over time. This version is dated 24 February 2012.
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 will be a
standard track RFC, the document provides an XML schema file for the definition
of CLUE data model types. The type is indicated 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: Technical Summary: This document
provides an XML schema file for the definition of CLUE data model types defined
in the CLUE framework document. 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? The document was discussed in the meeting, in conferences calls and on
the mailing list. The open issues were addressed and there are no open issues,
there was consensus on the content of the document.
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 is an existing implementation of the
data model. The chairs asked for an XML review but could not get one so far. It
will be good to have one during the IESG processing. XML review done see
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/clue/1WeFBrIo17CLL_t_6anoHAHMwqg
Personnel:
Who is the Document Shepherd? Who is the Responsible Area Director?
Roni Even is the Document Shepherd.
The responsible AD is Alissa Cooper.
(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 reviewed the document in previous and current versions
and found it ready for publication.
(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of
the reviews that have been performed? The document had good reviews before and
during the WGLC. The comments during the WGLC were addressed and we had a
second short WGLC just before sending the document to publication.
(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. There is a
need for XML directorate review.
(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. 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? Yes. The authors confirmed.
(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 none. (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 WG
understand the document and agree with 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.) 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 a
couple of long lines, can be fixed later - RFC editor (12) Describe how the
document meets any required formal review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor,
media type, and URI type reviews. Need an XML review. (13) Have all references
within this document been identified as either normative or informative? There
are only informative references. (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. There are none (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. No (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 are
consistent with the document. The IANA registries are specified.
(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. No new IANA registries.
(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. I reviewed the XML schema.