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:
draft-ietf-ecrit-ecall specifies IETF mechanisms to support next-generation pan-European eCall (European vehicle-initiated emergency calls). It also provides the basis for next-generation vehicle-initiated emergency calls in other regions. The document also registers MIME media types and an INFO package. Multiple SDOs (including 3GPP, 3GPP2, CEN, NENA, 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.
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 on a quick timetable.
Media types registered by this document received expert review on the mediatypes mailing list. The expertise of Ned Freed, in particular, was extremely helpful in solving an issue that arose, in a way that was compatible with a predecessor document, RFC 7852.
The media type discussion can be found in the thread that begins with:
Other types of formal expert review were not required.
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
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
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
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
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
(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?
(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.
(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).
There is one new registry, currently called Metadata/Control Data with two new sub-registries under it. I advise that this registry be renamed Ecrit Ecall Metadata/Control Data Registry for improved indexing.
I have requested the editor to make this change in conjunction with IETF LC comments.
(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.
An Expert Reviewer is specified for the new registry (and sub-registries) listed in (17).
I recommend that Brian Rosen be considered for this Expert Reviewer role.
(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 schema n this document was checked and validated using the tool at https://www.xmlvalidation.com. There is one error in the schema - the end tag is missing for xs:import.
I have requested the editor to fix this in conjunction with IETF LC comments.