> Document Shepherd Writeup per RFC 4858 template, (dated 24 February 2012),
for the following work group draft: > >
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ecrit-additional-data/ > > > (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? > > RFC
type being requested for this draft is “Proposed Standard”, since the draft
provides guidelines. > > > (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: > > > Technical Summary > > Relevant content can frequently be found
in the abstract > and/or introduction of the document. If not, this may be >
an indication that there are deficiencies in the abstract > or introduction. >
> [Abstract] > When an emergency call is sent to a Public Safety Answering
Point > (PSAP), the device that sends it, as well as any application service >
provider in the path of the call, or access network provider through > which
the call originated may have information about the call, the > caller or the
location which the PSAP may be able to use. > > This document describes data
structures and a mechanism to convey such > data to the PSAP. The mechanism
uses a Uniform Resource Identifier > (URI), which may point to either an
external resource or an object in > the body of the SIP message. The mechanism
thus allows the data to > be passed by reference (when the URI points to an
external resource) > or by value (when it points into the body of the message).
This > follows the tradition of prior emergency services standardization >
work where data can be conveyed by value within the call signaling > (i.e., in
body of the SIP message) and also by reference. > > > Working Group Summary > >
Was there anything in WG process that is worth noting? For > example, was
there controversy about particular points or > were there decisions where the
consensus was particularly > rough? > > There was a good amount of work group
participation in contributing, discussing, and revising the details that make
up the draft. There were no significant controversies noted on the list, and
all dialogues were efficiently attended to with during the development stage. A
successful development progression is documented in the ECRIT working group
minutes and in email list archives. > > > Document Quality > > Are there
existing implementations of the protocol? Have a > significant number of
vendors indicated their plan to > implement the specification? Are there any
reviewers that > merit special mention as having done a thorough review, >
e.g., one that resulted in important changes or a > conclusion that the
document had no substantive issues? If > there was a MIB Doctor, Media Type or
other expert review, > what was its course (briefly)? In the case of a Media
Type > review, on what date was the request posted? > > No existing
implementations are known to exist per this document. There have been several
vendors that have been involved in the development and review of the document.
> > > Personnel > > Who is the Document Shepherd? Who is the Responsible Area
> Director? > > Document shepherd is Marc Linsner. > Area Director is Alissa
Cooper. > > > (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. > > Careful review by the document shepherd following WGLC. > > >
(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or > breadth
of the reviews that have been performed? > > No. > > > (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. > >
> (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. > > None
noted. > > > (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. > > I have confirmation
from each author that all IPR has disclosed. > > (8) Has an IPR disclosure been
filed that references this document? > If so, summarize any WG discussion and
conclusion regarding the IPR > disclosures. > > None that I am aware of. > > >
(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 strong work group
consensus to move this document forward to RFC status. > > > (10) Has anyone
threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme > discontent? If so, please
summarize 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.) > > No. > > > (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. > > Summary: 0 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 3
warnings (==), 2 comments (--). > > > (12) Describe how the document meets any
required formal review > criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI
type reviews. > > There are no MIB, media, or new URI types referenced to in
this document. > > (13) Have all references within this document been
identified as > either normative or informative? > > Yes. > > > (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? > > No, and therefore N/A. > > > (15) Are there
downward normative references (see RFC 3967)? > If so, list these downward
references to support the Area Director in > the Last Call procedure. > > None.
> > > (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. > > No referenced RFCs will change in status due to
publication of this document. > > > (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). > > All
IANA registry requirements have been met. > > > (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. > > None. > > > (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. > > Not applicable.