Document Shepherd: Jaime Jiménez <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Area Director: Barry Leiba <email@example.com>
In many M2M applications, direct discovery of resources is not practical due to sleeping nodes, disperse networks, or networks where multicast traffic is inefficient. These problems can be solved by employing an entity called a Resource Directory (RD), which hosts descriptions of resources held on other servers, allowing lookups to be performed for those resources. This document specifies the web interfaces that a Resource Directory supports in order for web servers to discover the RD and to register, maintain, lookup and remove resources descriptions. Furthermore, new link attributes useful in conjunction with an RD are defined.
The document is intended for Standards Track.
### Review and Consensus
The document has gone through multiple expert reviews and has been discussed on multiple IETF meetings.
There have been several implementations and interoperability events during IETF Hackathons and off-site.
There are implementations made by Open Source OS makers (e.g. Mbed, RIOT...), several open source implementations by individuals (e.g. aiocoap, californium...) and versions run by companies on their products as well as several SDO (i.e., OMA, etc) implementations that use *some* version of this draft.
### 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
Since this document has been work in progress for several years now, it is cumbersome to find references to the specific discussions regarding new core-parameters.
They were added already in earlier versions of the draft, taking RFC6690 as a model for link formatting.
Some of the discussions on the new "rt=" values and registry can be found at https://github.com/core-wg/resource-directory/issues?utf8=%E2%9C%93&q=rt%3D
* [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?
* [x] If this is a "bis" document, have all of the errata been considered?
* **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?
* [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?