### Summary
Document Shepherd: Marco Tiloca <marco.tiloca@ri.se>
Area Director: Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org>
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'