(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?
Proposed Standard. The type of RFC is indicated in the title page header and
it is appropriate because the WG was chartered for standards track work in this
technology.
(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
draft-ietf-ecrit-car-crash specifies IETF mechanisms to support next-generation
vehicle-initiated emergency calls in multiple regions, including North America.
It builds on the foundation provided for the pan-European eCall service and it
is normatively dependent on draft-ietf-ecrit-ecall, proceeding in parallel.
The document also registers a MIME media type and an INFO package. External
SDOs (including NENA, the I_HeERO [Harmonised eCall European Deployment]
project, and others) have references to this document, and are waiting for an
RFC number.
Working Group Summary
The document was reviewed by a large number of people during its development.
Towards the end it received a large number of comments from a small number of
people, and their comments were carefully considered, and resolved with good
(mostly not rough) consensus. Multiple WG participants also participate in the
SDOs intending to use this document and have made sure the document meets the
needs of those SDOs.
Document Quality
There are not presently implementations of the protocol, but the SDOs charged
with overall next-generation pan-European emergency call have many vendors
interested in implementation of the car-crash protocol on a quick timetable.
A media type registered by this document was posted for received expert review
on the mediatypes mailing list. It did not receive direct comments, but it had
the same issue as the media type registered by draft-ietf-ecrit-ecall, which
was resolved with the help of Ned Freed. The thread for that issue begins at:
https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/media-types/current/msg00835.html
The request for review on this document's media type is here:
https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/media-types/current/msg00842.html
Other types of formal expert review were not required.
Personnel
Allison Mankin is the Document Shepherd. Alissa Cooper is the Responsible
Area Director
(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.
I reviewed this document and concluded it was logical, clear and consistent.
The detailed reviews by several participants helped with consistency, since the
document has been worked on for a long time.
(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or
breadth of the reviews that have been performed?
No concerns with the depth or breadth of reviews. This is ready to proceed.
(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 additional review other than that of the IESG is required.
(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.
I have no concerns to mention. In addition, the Responsible Area Director has
been actively involved in the long development of this document and is well
apprised.
(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.
Yes, the authors have done this confirmation.
(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document?
If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR
disclosures.
An IPR disclosure was filed on the first version of the document, and renewed
when the document had had several revisions, but prior to adoption by the WG.
The disclosure is by Qualcomm and I was told that the claim is current. The WG
discussed the IPR disclosures on the mailing list before WG adoption and then
went on to adopt the document in the WG.
(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?
A medium number of individuals have been actively engaged with the document,
and there has been robust debate. I am satisfied in reviewing minutes and
discussing the document with my co-chair (Roger Marshall) that there was broad
understanding, and consensus, as this is an important use case of the WG's
technology.
(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.)
No threats, nothing extreme.
(11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this
document. (See https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts
Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be
thorough.
I have asked the editor to address several nits when he revises in response to
IETF Last Call - the primary issue is that two normative references have been
obsoleted by bis RFCs: 3023 -> 7303, and 4288 -> 6838.
(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review
criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.
Formal media type review was completed, see above.
(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?
(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.
RFC 6443, an Informational, is currently listed as a Normative reference, but I
believe on review that there is no reason for this, and it should be moved to
the Informational references. There is no need to trigger a downref procedure,
or force normative in this case.
A specification that was joint work by NENA and two automotive organizations is
also among the Normative References, and I believe it does need to be
normative. I'm uncertain of how this is currently handled by the IESG, so I
forward the issue of this reference to the Responsible Area Director.
(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.
(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).
Three new sub-registries are created under a registry created by the normative
reference draft-ietf-ecrit-ecall, which is proceeding in parallel to this
document. No changes are required to the sub-registry names, but this document
will have to be updated to match the requested more specific name for the new
registry in which they appear (as discussed in the Shepherd Writeup of
draft-ietf-ecrit-ecall.
(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.
No new Expert Review.
(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.
The XML examples in this document were checked and validated using the tool at
https://www.xmlvalidation.com and also the tool at
http://www.w3schools.com/xml/xml_validator.asp and I am satisfied that these
examples are valid.