Shepherd writeup
draft-ietf-ecrit-location-profile-registry-policy-02

Document shepherd writeup for draft-ietf-ecrit-location-profile-registry-policy-01:

(1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard,
    Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)?

	Proposed Standard.

    Why is this the proper type of RFC?

	A proposed Standard is needed in order to modify the policy of the registry created by RFC 5222.

    Is this type of RFC indicated in the title page header? 

        Yes.


(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:

	As location determination technologies improve, new location profiles will be needed (e.g., three-dimensional ones). The LoST protocol requires location information conforming to a standardized location profile. RFC 5222 created a registry for location profiles, with a policy that requires an RFC for new values. NENA has identified the need for new profiles (initially, three-dimensional versions of the existing 2D ones).  A new RFC imposes a high cost without commensurate benefit.  A more straightforward alternative approach is to have the criteria for adding new location profiles be a published standard from a relevant SDO, rather than an RFC for each profile that might become needed over time.
	
    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? 

	Nothing was noted. Consensus was straightforward, including several participants (mostly tied to NENA) provided a positive response for the question of whether this draft should be adopted as a WG item, with a couple of participants doing a thorough review with comments as noted in the Acknowledgements section.

    Document Quality:

    Are there existing implementations of the protocol? Have a significant
    number of vendors indicated their plan to implement the specification.

	This document makes a policy change to enable the use of a different process within a registry for an existing standard. Because it represents a change in process, this standard (the change) has yet to be implemented. NENA had identified a need for additional profiles for three-dimensional location.  There is also at least one country that is eager to create a different location profile (Canada) based on a developing standard (NENA) and others, including Europe, that are expected to also use the process outlined in this draft to also create a location profile. These two, specifically, are dependent on the policy change in this document.

    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?

	This document is short and straightforward, with consensus having been reached on the list.  One implementer has been a primary advocate of this draft due to an imminently upcoming deployment. Section 5 acknowledges the primary reviewers. Others, not mentioned, have also reviewed the draft. Though limited in number, the list mentions those reviews that have been thorough.


    If there was a MIB Doctor, YANG 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? 

        N/A

    Personnel:

    Who is the Document Shepherd?         Roger Marshall
    Who is the Responsible Area Director? Murray Kucherawy

(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. 

        The document shepherd did a manual review of the doc, and
        also checked it against id-nits.

(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth
    of the reviews that have been performed? 

        No concerns.

(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. 

        Nothing specific needed.  The primary purpose is a process change that allows for additional location profile without requiring an RFC, but still relying on a developed standard. This change, to be adopted by other countries, enables RFC 5222 to have deeper use for other regions, governments, languages and cultures, yet still maintaining a standards-driven dependency that requires a defined standard.

(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. 

        No concerns.

(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.

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

        None filed.

(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? 

        This document has solid WG consensus, with no dissenters, yet a limited number of reviewers compared to when the working group was more active.

(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.) 

        None.

(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. 

    ID nits warnings:

  ** Missing document type: Expected "INTERNET-DRAFT" in the upper left hand
     corner of the first page

  == The page length should not exceed 58 lines per page, but there was 1
     longer page, the longest (page 1) being 70 lines

  == The copyright year in the IETF Trust and authors Copyright Line does not
     match the current year

  -- The document date (November 18, 2020) is 103 days in the past.  Is this
     intentional?

       
(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria,
    such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews. 

        N/A

(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. 

        No

(16) Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs?

        No

    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. 

        Yes

(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 8126). 

        This document, if approved, does require an action by IANA to modify the policy for adding new registry entries.
        Document shepherd verified that no other IANA changes are needed.

(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 needed.

(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, YANG modules, etc.

        N/A. No formal languages used.

(20) If the document contains a YANG module, has the module been
    checked with any of the recommended validation tools
    (https://trac.ietf.org/trac/ops/wiki/yang-review-tools) for syntax and
    formatting validation? If there are any resulting errors or warnings,
    what is the justification for not fixing them at this time? Does the YANG
    module comply with the Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA)
    as specified in RFC8342?

        N/A.  No YANG module used.
Back