A Routing Request Extension for the HTTP-Enabled Location Delivery (HELD) Protocol
draft-ietf-ecrit-held-routing-05

[Ballot comment]

section 4: The optional service URN seems like a thing where
it could be dangerous to be over-general, and where being
specific to emergency calling services would be a good
restriction. I would not like "service=urn:advertising" to be
something that'd work here. (At least not without
consideration of how that could be used for ad blocking:-)
The registry from RFC5031 does however seem to control that
correctly (via standards action or ECRIT WG/IESG review) so I
think it'd be better here to say that the service URN MUST be
in that specific registry. If that is already in the text
that's fine, but I didn't read it as quite having that MUST.

[Ballot comment]
A detail but since I spent time writing it while performing my review, here it is.

Sure, I should know about all the references before reading this document, but simply things such as expanding the first acronym occurences facilitates the reading.
Public Safety Answering Point (PSAP)
Location-to-Service Translation (LoST)

Ah. Now, I arrive to section 2, where I see those...

[Ballot comment]
I note that the reference to 5687 was moved to informative in -04.  I think the fact that it's used as the reference for privacy and security considerations leads to its being normative, as it originally was.  But, really, I think the right fix for that is to change the phrases in Sections 8 and 9 that say "beyond those already described in [RFC5687]" to instead say "beyond those already described in [RFC5985]".  I think using the security aspects of the base HELD protocol as the basic considerations for this extension is the right thing.  Comments?

[Ballot comment]
The following is a training review from Suresh Krishnan (incoming INT AD)

* Section 7

Not using documentation address block for examples. Using RFC1918 space instead. IANA has allocated 192.0.2.0/24 for documentation use.

[Ballot comment]
There is some confusion about whether this draft updates 6881. The headers and section 5 say it does, but the abstract does not. (Since the abstract _does_ mention 5985, I assume the authors intended to follow the convention of mentioning such things in the abstract.)

It would be nice to have a sentence or two on why some countries are reluctant to deploy public LoST servers. (I recognize there may be too many worms in that can, so feel free to ignore.)

- section 5, 2nd paragraph:
I don't understand the 2nd sentence. It seems like this updates 6881 or it doesn't.

[Ballot comment]
Nit: "funciton" should be "function".

In this text:

  Evolving architectures in Europe to address regulatory requirements,
  such as [M493], couple location and routing information in the access
  network whilst using a softswitch-centric approach to emergency call
  processing.
 
"softswitch-centric" is clearly defined in Section 3, but that's later in the document. Perhaps you could include a forward reference to Section 3 here?

(Via drafts-lastcall@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

IANA has completed its review of draft-ietf-ecrit-held-routing-04. If any part of this review is inaccurate, please let us know.

IANA understands that, upon approval of this document, there are two actions which IANA must complete.

First, in the namespace section of the IETF XML registry located at:

http://www.iana.org/assignments/xml-registry/

a new namespace will be registered as follows:

ID: geopriv:held:ri
URI: urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:geopriv:held:ri
Filename: [ TBD-at-registration ]
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

Second, in the schema section of the IETF XML registry located at:

http://www.iana.org/assignments/xml-registry/

a new schema will be registered as follows:

ID: geopriv:held:ri
URI: urn:ietf:params:xml:schema:geopriv:held:ri
Filename: [ TBD-at-registration ]
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

The IESG-designated registry experts are currently reviewing these actions.

Note:  The actions requested in this document, if approved, will not be completed until the document has been approved for publication as an RFC. This message is only to confirm what actions will be performed.

The following Last Call announcement was sent out:

From: The IESG
To: "IETF-Announce"
CC: draft-ietf-ecrit-held-routing@ietf.org, rmarshall@telecomsys.com, alcoop@cisco.com, ecrit@ietf.org, ecrit-chairs@ietf.org, "Roger Marshall"
Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org
Sender:
Subject: Last Call:  (A Routing Request Extension for the HELD Protocol) to Proposed Standard


The IESG has received a request from the Emergency Context Resolution
with Internet Technologies WG (ecrit) to consider the following document:
- 'A Routing Request Extension for the HELD Protocol'
  as Proposed Standard

The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the
ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2016-01-28. Exceptionally, comments may be
sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the
beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting.

Abstract


  For cases where location servers have access to emergency routing
  information they are able to return routing information with the
  location information if the location request includes a request for
  the desired routing information.  This document specifies an
  extension to the HELD protocol, updating [RFC5985], to support this
  funciton.




The file can be obtained via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ecrit-held-routing/

IESG discussion can be tracked via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ecrit-held-routing/ballot/


No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D.

Document Shepherd Writeup per RFC 4858 template, (dated 24 February 2012), for the following work group draft:

A Routing Request Extension for the HELD Protocol
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/ draft-ietf-ecrit-held-routing-03/


(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 describes normative changes to the HELD protocol for use in
emergency services.  The title page lists it currently as "Standard".


(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]

  For cases where location servers have access to emergency routing
  information they are able to return routing information with the
  location information if the location request includes a request for
  the desired routing information.  This document specifies an
  extension to the HELD protocol to support this function.


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 significant work group participation in discussion of the approach taken within the draft, since it introduces a different way to use the HELD protocol, which originally was designed exclusively to convey location information.  There were some controversies noted on the list, and all dialogues were efficiently attended to during the development stage.  One final objection was noted and addressed by the draft author, with no follow up provided by the commenter, despite ample opportunity/time to do so. A successful development progression is documented in the ECRIT work 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.  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 Roger Marshall.
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.

Each of the authors confirmed that they were not aware of any existing IPR
Relating to this draft.


(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document?
If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR
disclosures.

None posted.


(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 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.

Yes, see (15) below.


(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, but does seek to register a new URN sub-namespace
as 'urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:geopriv:held:ri' and new IANA registered XML
namespace.


(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.


(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.

Two downref errors were reported by the Nits process (listed as Normative
References pointing to Informational RFCs).  One of the Authors, after
being contacted on the subject, reiterated his adherence to the Normative
classification for each citing, claiming that formal definition of terms
within the Informational RFCs are essential to the understanding of the
present draft.


(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.

There are no BNF or MIB parts applicable. The XML examples appear to
be well formed.