Shepherd writeup
rfc7852-38

> 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.