(1) 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?
(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:
DNS-SD/mDNS is widely used today for discovery and resolution of services and names on a local link, but there are use cases to extend DNS-SD/mDNS to enable service discovery beyond the local link. This document provides a problem statement and documents a set of requirements against which solutions can be designed and measured.
Working Group Summary:
The WG generally reached strong consensus on all points, including all requirements, in the document.
There was some specific discussion about whether wireless links should be treated differently, but it was agreed that REQ9 should be generalised and say "SSD should operate efficiently on common link layers and link types."
The evolution of the other requirements was quite smooth with good consensus.
As a requirements document, a number of implementors/vendors have expressed an interest in working towards a common, interoperable solution for service discovery across multiple links.
No specialist review was required.
A separate threat analysis is being documented through draft-rafiee-dnssd-mdns-threatmodel-01.
Who is the Document Shepherd? Who is the Responsible Area Director?
Document shepherd: Tim Chown
Responsible AD: Ted Lemon
(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 shepherd has reviewed the draft through its iterations in the dnssd WG and believes it represents full and fair consensus of the WG. The document was in reasonable shape by IETF89, and a small number of final points were agreed at IETF90. The shepherd ensured that the authors applied the updates agreed by the WG.
(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed?
The document has been reviewed and commented on by a number of experienced WG members, and thus I am happy with the quality of review of the document.
(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.
No. Though a threat analysis activity for dnssd has been spun out into a separate dcoument, draft-rafiee-dnssd-mdns-threatmodel-01, which is being presented and discussed at IETF91. I believe the main requirements text can advance as is meanwhile.
(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.
The requirements document has allowed consensus to be agreed within the dnssd WG on the properties required of potential solution(s) and solution elements.
The WG showed a strong consensus to advance the document.
(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?
The draft includes the boilerplate confirming that the document "is submitted in full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79". No disclosures have been made, nor are expected to be made in an Informational requirements draft.
(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures.
(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?
There is a strong consensus on the document, and progressing it.
The only person expressing anything like strong views against parts of the document is Doug Otis, who has expressed comments about trill, and use of ULA overlays. The chairs do not believe his comments are relevant to the WG.
(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.)
(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.
(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.
(13) Have all references within this document been identified as either normative or informative?
Some references need updating, but this can be handled by the RFC Editor, paricularly homenet-arch, now RFC7368, and making the format of the mDNS and DNS-SD references consistent.
(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?
(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.
(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.
(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).
(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.
(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.