Shepherd writeup
draft-ietf-core-resource-directory

### Summary

Document Shepherd: Jaime Jiménez <jaime@iki.fi>
Area Director: Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org>

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

### 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? * [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?

Back