Uniform Resource Names for Device Identifiers
draft-ietf-core-dev-urn-11

[Ballot comment]
What's the relationship of urn:dev:os: and urn:dev:ops to the stuff
already done by OMA LwM2M?  Section 4.4 has a note that it was
originally defined there, but the template in Section 3 says this is the
initial registration.  This seems particularly important if we are also
changing the syntax at the same time.  The referenced [LwM2M] document
seems to be
https://www.openmobilealliance.org/release/LightweightM2M/V1_2-20190124-C/OMA-RD-LightweightM2M-V1_2-20190124-C.pdf
(based solely on the google results for the title and comparing the
revision number+date), which mentions neither "private enterprise
number" nor "dev:", "serial", etc.  I see a brief mention of this action
in the change log in Appendix A, but no clear indication of specific
change-control transfer or similar.

Do we really want to reference some "tutorials" from
www.maximintegrated.com as the normative reference for 1-Wire?

Thanks to Brian Weis for the secdir review, and thanks for updating the
document in response to it!

Section 1

  This document describes a new Uniform Resource Name (URN) [RFC8141]
  namespace for hardware device identifiers.  A general representation
  of device identity can be useful in many applications, such as in
  sensor data streams and storage [RFC8428], or equipment inventories
  [RFC7252], [I-D.ietf-core-resource-directory].

I'm not sure why RFC 7252 and [I-D.ietf-core-resource-directory] appear
to be getting used as references for "equipment inventories" when
neither mentions either term.

  [RFC3261], [RFC7252].  Finally, URNs can also be easily carried and
  stored in formats such as XML [W3C.REC-xml-19980210] or JSON
  [RFC8259] [RFC8428].  Using URNs in these formats is often preferable

Similarly, RFC 8428 appears to be unrelated to either the XML or JSON
formats directly.

  Future device identifier types can extend the device URN type defined
  here, or define their own URNs.

Do we want a forward-reference to Section 7 here (we have one later on
where a similar statement appears)?

Section 6

We might mention again the case-sensitivity issue, and that in many
cases it is easy for an attacker to create collisions.  But neither of
those seems particularly earth-shattering.

Section 7

Do we anticipate the future allocation of a "null" subtype? ;)

On a more serious note, though, "Specification Required" comes with
Expert Review -- is there more guidance we should give to the experts
about when to reject or accept a proposed new subtype other than "there
is a new namespace with stable reference"?  Perhaps a bias towards
accepting all proposals that even weakly meet that criterion and are not abusive,
even if not in broad use?

[Ballot comment]
Thank you to Brian Weis for the SECDIR review.

** Section 1.  Per “UUID-based identifiers are recommended for all general purpose uses when MAC addresses are available as identifiers”, this recommendation (non-normative) to use UUIDs without any context seems too strong.  To me, it read like, “if you have a MAC then this is perfectly acceptable UUID”.

** Section 3.3.  Per “The DEV URN type SHOULD only be used for persistent identifiers, such as hardware-based identifiers”, I have a few comments around the notion of “persistent”. 

-- Shouldn’t the text be s/persistent identifiers/hardware device identifiers/ as this is the definition from the first sentences of Sections 1 and 3.1?

-- It seems like the document should acknowledge that “hardware-based identifiers” come in different flavors of permanence

-- What would be the case for the DEV URNs to be used as ephemeral identifiers (as permitted by this text not using a MUST?)

** Section 6.  Repeating the caution from Section 6 of RFC4122 seems applicable here – (paraphrasing as this urn is more generic than RFC4122) without deferring to the policies governing particular sub-types and their delegated assignees (through PENs, etc.), no assumptions should be made that these URNs are “hard to guess”.

** Section 6.1.  Per “Also, usually here is no easy way to change the identifiers”, this reads a bit too strong of a statement.  Given the virtualization and OS privacy features, MACs are trivial to change and urn:dev:org is defined with sufficient ambiguity (which makes sense) that it isn’t clear what rules govern it.

** Section 6.2.  It would be useful to unpack “illegitimate entities on the path” – are this malicious entities which put themselves on the path, entities expected to be on the path that are acting contrary to the intent of the end points, compromised on-path infrastructure, etc …

[Ballot comment]
Thank you for the work put into this document. I just wonder why this document is the work of CORE as it is quite generic and could be used outside of CORE (but, this is not a problem at all as it is an IETF stream document and had an IETF last call).

There have been two IoT directorate reviews by:
- Dave Thaler https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/review-ietf-core-dev-urn-09-iotdir-telechat-thaler-2021-01-07/
- Russ Housley: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/review-ietf-core-dev-urn-09-iotdir-telechat-housley-2021-01-06/
both reviews have a status of 'Almost Ready' that translates into authors SHOULD really address the comments (and I have seen already many email messages on those reviews).


Please find below some non-blocking COMMENT points (but replies would be appreciated), and one nit.

I hope that this helps to improve the document,

Regards,

-éric

== COMMENTS ==


-- Section 4.1 --
Should "FFFF" be replaced by "0xffff" especially as there is some text before (section 3.2.1) suggesting to use lowercase of MAC addresses ?

More important: can MAC address be part of an identifier in the world of random MAC address (or on the spot generated MAC address -- think VM) ? I suggest to add some text around MAC address randomization impact.

== NITS ==

-- Section 4.2 --
s/64 bit identifier/64-bit identifier/ ?

### Summary

Document Shepherd: Marco Tiloca
Area Director: Barry Leiba

The document defines a Uniform Resource Name (URN) namespace, to express device URN-based identifiers for HW devices. Relevant target applications are sensor data streams and storage, smart object systems, and equipment inventories. The device URN is recommended especially for constrained environments.

On top of the "DEV" URN identifier type and its hierarchically structured syntax, the document defines a number of subtypes, as affecting the exact identifier assignment. Defined subtypes support device URNs that reflect: built-in EUI-64, MAC-48 and EUI-48 MAC addresses; 1-Wire proprietary identifiers; organization-specific identifiers, possibly including product class and serial number.

Examples of device URNs are provided, for the different subtypes.

DEV URNs are expected to be a part of the IETF-provided basic URN types. Supported effort was put on aligning identifier subtypes to OMA LWM2M.

The document is intended for Standards Track.

Version -09 addressed Last Call comments from IANA reviewers, Gen-ART, OPS-DIR, and SECDIR, about providing clarifications and small fixes.

Version -10 addressed two further reviews from the IoT Directorate, about the usage of percentage encoding in the identifier syntax and other clarifications.

Note: the initial publication request indicated the document as intended to be Informational. The change was agreed with the responsible Area Director, to give the document proper standing for reference by other organizations.

### Review and Consensus

The document has been discussed on multiple IETF meetings, and has gone through multiple expert reviews. Consensus has been reached on the content of this document and its need.

### Intellectual Property

Each author has stated that they do not have direct, personal knowledge of any IPR related to this document. I am not aware of any IPR discussion about this document on the CoRE WG.

### Other Points

The document registers a new URN namespace for "DEV", and provides detailed reasoning concerning the possible addition of more subtypes for DEV URNs in the future.

### Checklist

- [x] Does the shepherd stand behind the document and think the document is ready for publication?
- [x] Is the correct RFC type indicated in the title page header?
- [x] Is the abstract both brief and sufficient, and does it stand alone as a brief summary?
- [x] Is the intent of the document accurately and adequately explained in the introduction?
- [x] Have all required formal reviews (MIB Doctor, Media Type, URI, etc.) been requested and/or completed?
- [x] Has the shepherd performed automated checks -- idnits (see http://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts Checklist), checks of BNF rules, XML code and schemas, MIB definitions, and so on -- and determined that the document passes the tests?
- [x] Has each author stated that their direct, personal knowledge of any IPR related to this document has already been disclosed, in conformance with BCPs 78 and 79?
- [x] Have all references within this document been identified as either normative or informative, and does the shepherd agree with how they have been classified?
- [x] Are all normative references made to documents that are ready for advancement and are otherwise in a clear state?
- [x] If publication of this document changes the status of any existing RFCs, are those RFCs listed on the title page header, and are the changes listed in the abstract and discussed (explained, not just mentioned) in the introduction?
'Does not apply'
- [x] If this is a "bis" document, have all of the errata been considered?
'Does not apply'

**IANA** Considerations:

- [x] Are the IANA Considerations clear and complete? Remember that IANA have to understand unambiguously what's being requested, so they can perform the required actions.
- [x] Are all protocol extensions that the document makes associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries?
- [x] Are all IANA registries referred to by their exact names (check them in http://www.iana.org/protocols/ to be sure)?
- [x] Have you checked that any registrations made by this document correctly follow the policies and procedures for the appropriate registries?
- [x] For registrations that require expert review (policies of Expert Review or Specification Required), have you or the working group had any early review done, to make sure the requests are ready for last call?
- [x] For any new registries that this document creates, has the working group actively chosen the allocation procedures and policies and discussed the alternatives?
'Does not apply'
- [x]  Have reasonable registry names been chosen (that will not be confused with those of other registries), and have the initial contents and valid value ranges been clearly specified?
'Does not apply'

### Summary

Document Shepherd: Marco Tiloca
Area Director: Barry Leiba

The document defines a Uniform Resource Name (URN) namespace, to express device URN-based identifiers for HW devices. Relevant target applications are sensor data streams and storage, smart object systems, and equipment inventories. The device URN is recommended especially for constrained environments.

On top of the "DEV" URN identifier type and its hierarchically structured syntax, the document defines a number of subtypes, as affecting the exact identifier assignment. Defined subtypes support device URNs that reflect: built-in EUI-64, MAC-48 and EUI-48 MAC addresses; 1-Wire proprietary identifiers; organization-specific identifiers, possibly including product class and serial number.

Examples of device URNs are provided, for the different subtypes.

DEV URNs are expected to be a part of the IETF-provided basic URN types. Supported effort was put on aligning identifier subtypes to OMA LWM2M.

The document is intended for Standards Track.

Version -09 addressed Last Call comments from IANA reviewers, Gen-ART, OPS-DIR, and SECDIR, about providing clarifications and small fixes.

Note: the initial publication request indicated the document as intended to be Informational. The change was agreed with the responsible Area Director, to give the document proper standing for reference by other organizations.

### Review and Consensus

The document has been discussed on multiple IETF meetings, and has gone through multiple expert reviews. Consensus has been reached on the content of this document and its need.

### Intellectual Property

Each author has stated that they do not have direct, personal knowledge of any IPR related to this document. I am not aware of any IPR discussion about this document on the CoRE WG.

### Other Points

The document registers a new URN namespace for "DEV", and provides detailed reasoning concerning the possible addition of more subtypes for DEV URNs in the future.

### Checklist

- [x] Does the shepherd stand behind the document and think the document is ready for publication?
- [x] Is the correct RFC type indicated in the title page header?
- [x] Is the abstract both brief and sufficient, and does it stand alone as a brief summary?
- [x] Is the intent of the document accurately and adequately explained in the introduction?
- [x] Have all required formal reviews (MIB Doctor, Media Type, URI, etc.) been requested and/or completed?
- [x] Has the shepherd performed automated checks -- idnits (see http://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts Checklist), checks of BNF rules, XML code and schemas, MIB definitions, and so on -- and determined that the document passes the tests?
- [x] Has each author stated that their direct, personal knowledge of any IPR related to this document has already been disclosed, in conformance with BCPs 78 and 79?
- [x] Have all references within this document been identified as either normative or informative, and does the shepherd agree with how they have been classified?
- [x] Are all normative references made to documents that are ready for advancement and are otherwise in a clear state?
- [x] If publication of this document changes the status of any existing RFCs, are those RFCs listed on the title page header, and are the changes listed in the abstract and discussed (explained, not just mentioned) in the introduction?
'Does not apply'
- [x] If this is a "bis" document, have all of the errata been considered?
'Does not apply'

**IANA** Considerations:

- [x] Are the IANA Considerations clear and complete? Remember that IANA have to understand unambiguously what's being requested, so they can perform the required actions.
- [x] Are all protocol extensions that the document makes associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries?
- [x] Are all IANA registries referred to by their exact names (check them in http://www.iana.org/protocols/ to be sure)?
- [x] Have you checked that any registrations made by this document correctly follow the policies and procedures for the appropriate registries?
- [x] For registrations that require expert review (policies of Expert Review or Specification Required), have you or the working group had any early review done, to make sure the requests are ready for last call?
- [x] For any new registries that this document creates, has the working group actively chosen the allocation procedures and policies and discussed the alternatives?
'Does not apply'
- [x]  Have reasonable registry names been chosen (that will not be confused with those of other registries), and have the initial contents and valid value ranges been clearly specified?
'Does not apply'

(Via drafts-lastcall@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

The IANA Functions Operator has completed its review of draft-ietf-core-dev-urn-08. If any part of this review is inaccurate, please let us know.

The IANA Functions Operator has a question about one of the actions requested in the IANA Considerations section of this document.

The IANA Functions Operator understands that upon approval of this document, there are two actions to be completed.

First, in the Formal URN Namespaces registry on the Uniform Resource Names (URN) Namespaces registry page located at

https://www.iana.org/assignments/urn-namespaces/

a single new URN is to be registered:

URN Namespace: dev
Template: [ TBD-at-Registration ]
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

As this document requests registrations in an Expert Review or Specification Required (see RFC 8126) registry, we will initiate the required Expert Review via a separate request. This review must be completed before the document's IANA state can be changed to "IANA OK."

Second, a new registry called "DEV URN Subtypes" will be created.

IANA Question --> Where should this new registry be located? Should it be added to an existing registry page? If not, does it belong in an existing category at http://www.iana.org/protocols?

The new registry will be managed via Specification Required or IESG Approval as defined in RFC 8126. There are initial registrations:

Subtype: mac
Description: MAC Addresses
Reference: [ RFC-to-be Section 4.1]

Subtype: ow
Description: 1-Wire Device Identifiers
Reference: [ RFC-to-be Section 4.2]

Subtype: org
Description: Organization-Defined Identifiers
Reference: [ RFC-to-be Section 4.3]

Subtype: os
Description: Organization Serial Numbers
Reference: [ RFC-to-be Section 4.4]

Subtype: ops
Description: Organization Product and Serial Numbers
Reference: [ RFC-to-be Section 4.5]

The IANA Functions Operator understands that these are the only actions required upon approval of this document.

Note:  The actions requested in this document will not be completed until the document has been approved for publication as an RFC. This message is meant only to confirm the list of actions that will be performed.

Thank you,

Amanda Baber
Lead IANA Services Specialist

The following Last Call announcement was sent out (ends 2020-12-02):

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC: core-chairs@ietf.org, barryleiba@gmail.com, Marco Tiloca , marco.tiloca@ri.se, draft-ietf-core-dev-urn@ietf.org, core@ietf.org
Reply-To: last-call@ietf.org
Sender:
Subject: Last Call:  (Uniform Resource Names for Device Identifiers) to Proposed Standard


The IESG has received a request from the Constrained RESTful Environments WG
(core) to consider the following document: - 'Uniform Resource Names for
Device Identifiers'
  as Proposed Standard

The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits final
comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the
last-call@ietf.org mailing lists by 2020-12-02. Exceptionally, comments may
be sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the beginning
of the Subject line to allow automated sorting.

Abstract


  This document describes a new Uniform Resource Name (URN) namespace
  for hardware device identifiers.  A general representation of device
  identity can be useful in many applications, such as in sensor data
  streams and storage, or equipment inventories.  A URN-based
  representation can be easily passed along in any application that
  needs the information.




The file can be obtained via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-core-dev-urn/



No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D.

### Summary

Document Shepherd: Marco Tiloca
Area Director: Barry Leiba

The document defines a Uniform Resource Name (URN) namespace, to express device URN-based identifiers for HW devices. Relevant target applications are sensor data streams and storage, smart object systems, and equipment inventories. The device URN is recommended especially for constrained environments.

On top of the "DEV" URN identifier type and its hierarchically structured syntax, the document defines a number of subtypes, as affecting the exact identifier assignment. Defined subtypes support device URNs that reflect: built-in EUI-64, MAC-48 and EUI-48 MAC addresses; 1-Wire proprietary identifiers; organization-specific identifiers, possibly including product class and serial number.

Examples of device URNs are provided, for the different subtypes.

DEV URNs are expected to be a part of the IETF-provided basic URN types. Supported effort was put on aligning identifier subtypes to OMA LWM2M.

The document is intended for Standards Track.

Note: the initial publication request indicated the document as intended to be Informational. The change was agreed with the responsible Area Director, to give the document proper standing for reference by other organizations.

### Review and Consensus

The document has been discussed on multiple IETF meetings, and has gone through multiple expert reviews. Consensus has been reached on the content of this document and its need.

### Intellectual Property

Each author has stated that they do not have direct, personal knowledge of any IPR related to this document. I am not aware of any IPR discussion about this document on the CoRE WG.

### Other Points

The document registers a new URN namespace for "DEV", and provides detailed reasoning concerning the possible addition of more subtypes for DEV URNs in the future.

### Checklist

- [x] Does the shepherd stand behind the document and think the document is ready for publication?
- [x] Is the correct RFC type indicated in the title page header?
- [x] Is the abstract both brief and sufficient, and does it stand alone as a brief summary?
- [x] Is the intent of the document accurately and adequately explained in the introduction?
- [x] Have all required formal reviews (MIB Doctor, Media Type, URI, etc.) been requested and/or completed?
- [x] Has the shepherd performed automated checks -- idnits (see http://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts Checklist), checks of BNF rules, XML code and schemas, MIB definitions, and so on -- and determined that the document passes the tests?
- [x] Has each author stated that their direct, personal knowledge of any IPR related to this document has already been disclosed, in conformance with BCPs 78 and 79?
- [x] Have all references within this document been identified as either normative or informative, and does the shepherd agree with how they have been classified?
- [x] Are all normative references made to documents that are ready for advancement and are otherwise in a clear state?
- [x] If publication of this document changes the status of any existing RFCs, are those RFCs listed on the title page header, and are the changes listed in the abstract and discussed (explained, not just mentioned) in the introduction?
'Does not apply'
- [x] If this is a "bis" document, have all of the errata been considered?
'Does not apply'

**IANA** Considerations:

- [x] Are the IANA Considerations clear and complete? Remember that IANA have to understand unambiguously what's being requested, so they can perform the required actions.
- [x] Are all protocol extensions that the document makes associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries?
- [x] Are all IANA registries referred to by their exact names (check them in http://www.iana.org/protocols/ to be sure)?
- [x] Have you checked that any registrations made by this document correctly follow the policies and procedures for the appropriate registries?
- [x] For registrations that require expert review (policies of Expert Review or Specification Required), have you or the working group had any early review done, to make sure the requests are ready for last call?
- [x] For any new registries that this document creates, has the working group actively chosen the allocation procedures and policies and discussed the alternatives?
'Does not apply'
- [x]  Have reasonable registry names been chosen (that will not be confused with those of other registries), and have the initial contents and valid value ranges been clearly specified?
'Does not apply'

### Summary

Document Shepherd: Marco Tiloca
Area Director: Barry Leiba

The document defines a Uniform Resource Name (URN) namespace, to express device URN-based identifiers for HW devices. Relevant target applications are sensor data streams and storage, smart object systems, and equipment inventories. The device URN is recommended especially for constrained environments.

On top of the "DEV" URN identifier type and its hierarchically structured syntax, the document defines a number of subtypes, as affecting the exact identifier assignment. Defined subtypes support device URNs that reflect: built-in EUI-64, MAC-48 and EUI-48 MAC addresses; 1-Wire proprietary identifiers; organization-specific identifiers, possibly including product class and serial number.

Examples of device URNs are provided, for the different subtypes.

DEV URNs are expected to be a part of the IETF-provided basic URN types. Supported effort was put on aligning identifier subtypes to OMA LWM2M.

The document is intended as Informational.

### Review and Consensus

The document has been discussed on multiple IETF meetings, and has gone through multiple expert reviews. Consensus has been reached on the content of this document and its need.

### Intellectual Property

Each author has stated that they do not have direct, personal knowledge of any IPR related to this document. I am not aware of any IPR discussion about this document on the CoRE WG.

### Other Points

The document registers a new URN namespace for "DEV", and provides detailed reasoning concerning the possible addition of more subtypes for DEV URNs in the future.

### Checklist

- [x] Does the shepherd stand behind the document and think the document is ready for publication?
- [x] Is the correct RFC type indicated in the title page header?
- [x] Is the abstract both brief and sufficient, and does it stand alone as a brief summary?
- [x] Is the intent of the document accurately and adequately explained in the introduction?
- [x] Have all required formal reviews (MIB Doctor, Media Type, URI, etc.) been requested and/or completed?
- [x] Has the shepherd performed automated checks -- idnits (see http://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts Checklist), checks of BNF rules, XML code and schemas, MIB definitions, and so on -- and determined that the document passes the tests?
- [x] Has each author stated that their direct, personal knowledge of any IPR related to this document has already been disclosed, in conformance with BCPs 78 and 79?
- [x] Have all references within this document been identified as either normative or informative, and does the shepherd agree with how they have been classified?
- [x] Are all normative references made to documents that are ready for advancement and are otherwise in a clear state?
- [x] If publication of this document changes the status of any existing RFCs, are those RFCs listed on the title page header, and are the changes listed in the abstract and discussed (explained, not just mentioned) in the introduction?
'Does not apply'
- [x] If this is a "bis" document, have all of the errata been considered?
'Does not apply'

**IANA** Considerations:

- [x] Are the IANA Considerations clear and complete? Remember that IANA have to understand unambiguously what's being requested, so they can perform the required actions.
- [x] Are all protocol extensions that the document makes associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries?
- [x] Are all IANA registries referred to by their exact names (check them in http://www.iana.org/protocols/ to be sure)?
- [x] Have you checked that any registrations made by this document correctly follow the policies and procedures for the appropriate registries?
- [x] For registrations that require expert review (policies of Expert Review or Specification Required), have you or the working group had any early review done, to make sure the requests are ready for last call?
- [x] For any new registries that this document creates, has the working group actively chosen the allocation procedures and policies and discussed the alternatives?
'Does not apply'
- [x]  Have reasonable registry names been chosen (that will not be confused with those of other registries), and have the initial contents and valid value ranges been clearly specified?
'Does not apply'

### Summary

Document Shepherd: Marco Tiloca
Area Director: Barry Leiba

The document defines a Uniform Resource Name (URN) namespace, to express device URN-based identifiers for HW devices. Relevant target applications are sensor data streams and storage, smart object systems, and equipment inventories. The device URN is recommended especially for constrained environments.

On top of the "DEV" URN identifier type and its hierarchically structured syntax, the document defines a number of subtypes, as affecting the exact identifier assignment. Defined subtypes support device URNs that reflect: built-in EUI-64, MAC-48 and EUI-48 MAC addresses; 1-Wire proprietary identifiers; organization-specific identifiers, possibly including product class and serial number.

Examples of device URNs are provided, for the different subtypes.

DEV URNs are expected to be a part of the IETF-provided basic URN types. Supported effort was put on aligning identifier subtypes to OMA LWM2M.

The document is intended as Informational.

### Review and Consensus

The document has been discussed on multiple IETF meetings, and has gone through multiple expert reviews. Consensus has been reached on the content of this document and its need.

### Intellectual Property

Each author has stated that they do not have direct, personal knowledge of any IPR related to this document. I am not aware of any IPR discussion about this document on the CoRE WG.

### Other Points

The document registers a new URN namespace for "DEV", and provides detailed reasoning concerning the possible addition of more subtypes for DEV URNs in the future.

### Checklist

- [x] Does the shepherd stand behind the document and think the document is ready for publication?
- [x] Is the correct RFC type indicated in the title page header?
- [x] Is the abstract both brief and sufficient, and does it stand alone as a brief summary?
- [x] Is the intent of the document accurately and adequately explained in the introduction?
- [x] Have all required formal reviews (MIB Doctor, Media Type, URI, etc.) been requested and/or completed?
- [x] Has the shepherd performed automated checks -- idnits (see http://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts Checklist), checks of BNF rules, XML code and schemas, MIB definitions, and so on -- and determined that the document passes the tests?
- [x] Has each author stated that their direct, personal knowledge of any IPR related to this document has already been disclosed, in conformance with BCPs 78 and 79?
- [x] Have all references within this document been identified as either normative or informative, and does the shepherd agree with how they have been classified?
- [x] Are all normative references made to documents that are ready for advancement and are otherwise in a clear state?
- [x] If publication of this document changes the status of any existing RFCs, are those RFCs listed on the title page header, and are the changes listed in the abstract and discussed (explained, not just mentioned) in the introduction?
'Does not apply'
- [x] If this is a "bis" document, have all of the errata been considered?
'Does not apply'

**IANA** Considerations:

- [x] Are the IANA Considerations clear and complete? Remember that IANA have to understand unambiguously what's being requested, so they can perform the required actions.
- [x] Are all protocol extensions that the document makes associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries?
- [x] Are all IANA registries referred to by their exact names (check them in http://www.iana.org/protocols/ to be sure)?
- [x] Have you checked that any registrations made by this document correctly follow the policies and procedures for the appropriate registries?
- [x] For registrations that require expert review (policies of Expert Review or Specification Required), have you or the working group had any early review done, to make sure the requests are ready for last call?
- [x] For any new registries that this document creates, has the working group actively chosen the allocation procedures and policies and discussed the alternatives?
'Does not apply'
- [x]  Have reasonable registry names been chosen (that will not be confused with those of other registries), and have the initial contents and valid value ranges been clearly specified?
'Does not apply'