A LoST extension to return complete and similar location info
draft-ietf-ecrit-similar-location-19

[Ballot comment]
Thank you for the work put into this document.

Special thanks to Dwight Purtle for the shepherd's write-up including the detailed section about the WG consensus.

Thank you as well to Tatuya Jinmei for this INT directorate review at:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/review-ietf-ecrit-similar-location-18-intdir-telechat-jinmei-2022-02-25/
I have seen that Brian Rosen has already replied to this review.

After reviewing the document, I have no further comments.

I hope that Tatuya's review helps to improve the document,

Regards,

-éric

[Ballot comment]
1. In Section 4 you have

  Clients can control the return of additional location information by
  including the optional 'returnAdditionalLocation' attribute with
  possible values 'none', 'similar', 'complete' or 'any'.  The value
  'none' means to not return additional location information, 'similar'
  and 'complete' mean to only return the respective type of additional
  location information (if the server could send any) and 'any' means
  to include Similar and/or Complete Location (if the server could send
  any).

I don’t know if extensibility is a consideration for you at all, but if it is, might it be appropriate to tweak the definition of ‘any’ slightly? As written, if the returnAdditionalLocation attribute were later extended to have the additional possible value ‘sporcle’, a request for ‘any’ from a strictly compliant implementation would still presumably only return Similar and/or Complete but not Sporcle results.

(The fact I can’t think of a non-silly example may suggest that this point is moot.)

2. In Section 5.2, I’m confused. Surely (or SHIRLEY) that query and response can’t be right? I expected it to match the second example given in Section 3, but it doesn’t at all. Nor do the purported similarLocations seem to match the query very well (they differ in much more than just POD, for example the countries of the two similarLocations differ and of course one differs from the country of the query. And now my head is spinning with the plate tectonic implications of Queensland and Washington State colliding.

Nits:

  (county) and  (Postal Code) Civic Address Elements.  In this
  example, too, the LoST server is able uniquely locate the intended

“is able” -> “is able to”

[Ballot comment]
Thank you for the work on this document

Many thanks to Claudio Allocchio for his ART ART review:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/art/gTqJGjkpYHmcYZPoX1oTvPqC_Zg/.

I only have one comment on two uses of SHOULD in the text.

Francesca

1. -----

  call, it might not be as desirable for other services.  Individual
  LoST server implementations SHOULD consider the risk of releasing
  more detail versus the value in doing so.  Generally, supplying more

  LoST server implementations SHOULD evaluate the particular use cases
  where this extension is supported, and weigh the risks around its
  use.

FP: I believe the use of BCP 14 SHOULD is inappropriate here - these statements are not for interoperability, and as 2119 states, BCP 14 terms must only be used where it is actually required for interoperation or to limit behavior which has potential for causing harm. "SHOULD consider" and "SHOULD evaluate" fall out of this case. Replacing SHOULD with "should" or "ought to" would be my choice.

[Ballot comment]
Thank you to Scott Kelly for the SECDIR review.

** Section 6.  This document should have a normative reference to the schema format used in this section.  Is that RELAX NG? or W3 Schema?  I’ll note that [I-D.ietf-ecrit-lost-planned-changes] also doesn’t normatively reference a schema format.

** Section 7.  Given the deployment models of LoST, is it expected that the entire contents of the server database would be publicly available?  Would it be an issue if large portions of the LoST back-end database (on the LoST server) were revealed?  I ask because if the server is willing to correct input/provide suggestions based on partial on invalid client input, a malicious party could potentially use this to enumerate the database via high volume of invalid/partial queries. If that’s a threat, then perhaps there should be a form for rate limiting applied on the number of corrected queries permitted per unit time.

[Ballot comment]
Found terminology that should be reviewed for inclusivity; see
https://www.rfc-editor.org/part2/#inclusive_language for background and more
guidance:

* Term "invalid"; alternatives might be "not valid", "unenforceable", "not
  binding", "inoperative", "illegitimate", "incorrect", "improper",
  "unacceptable", "inapplicable", "revoked", "rescinded".

Thanks to Russ Housley for their General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) review
(https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gen-art/mSoW1geq28l0DgXA32V6cZz01fQ).

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All comments below are about very minor potential issues that you may choose to
address in some way - or ignore - as you see fit. Some were flagged by
automated tools (via https://github.com/larseggert/ietf-reviewtool), so there
will likely be some false positives. There is no need to let me know what you
did with these suggestions.

Section 4. , paragraph 1, nit:
>  supposed to be; it is guessing. Therefore the correct location may or may n
>                                  ^^^^^^^^^
A comma may be missing after the conjunctive/linking adverb "Therefore".

These URLs in the document can probably be converted to HTTPS:
* http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml
* http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema
* http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml-basic/xhtml-basic10.dtd

[Ballot comment]
There were a few terms/XML elements used that I couldn't readily find a
clear definition for, across this document, RFC 5139, and RFC 5222, which
makes me wonder if there are any additional references we could list as
background reading for relevant terminology.  (Things like  and
, though the latter is slightly harder to do a plaintext search for
so I may have just missed it.)

Section 2

  Civic Location:  The term Civic Location applies to a set of one or
      more Civic Address Elements that are used in conjunction with each
      other, and in accordance with a known ruleset to designate a
      specific place within a region of geography, or a region of
      geography by itself as defined in [RFC5139].

Interestingly, I find neither the word "region" nor the word "geography"
in RFC 5139 ... perhaps we should say more about specifically which parts
of RFC 5139 are relevant here (particularly for the "as defined in" statement)?

  Complete Location:  An expanded civic location that includes other
      Civic Address Elements in addition to the existing validated Civic
      Address Elements provided as input to a LoST server.  Complete
      Location may be returned when the input location is valid but
      incomplete

This definition seems to be purely observational, relying on the LoST
server providing more elements than were supplied to it, without any
mention of why the server would do so or what information the new elements
might contain.  In other words, in what sense is this "complete"?

Also, we don't define what "incomplete" or an "incomplete location" is...

Section 7

We do pretty clearly state earlier that "the client cannot assume that any
[of the response locations] is the correct location", so I'm on the fence
about whether there's value in restating here that "though the intent of
this extension is to allow the LoST server to provide more accurate
location information to the client, only the client is in a position to
assess whether the response accurately reflects the intended location; in
particular, the client cannot assume that any of the returned locations is
the correct one without performing its own validation".

                                Providing more CAtypes generally
  doesn't actually reveal anything more.  [...]

The main route to a potential exception of the "generally" qualifier here
would be if the LoST server somehow had particularly sensitive or
non-public information in its database (but I can't come up with any
particularly plausible examples of that at the moment).  That said, this
sentence also reads a bit strangely to me, so I might consider
NEW:
% Providing more CAtypes generally doesn't actually reveal anything more
% than the unique location of the address in question, unless the LoST
% server has particularly sensitive or non-address information in its
% database.


NITS

Section 1

                                      The use of this protocol extension
  facilitates the timely correction of errors, and allows location
  servers to be more easily provisioned with complete address
  information.

I'm a little confused at how specifically this extension allows *location
servers* to be more easily *provisioned* with complete address
information.  I would have thought that rather it allows location servers
to more readily *provide* complete address information to location
consumers.  Am I misunderstanding the LoST protocol flow?

Section 4

  These elements MAY contain location information either in the Basic
  Civic profile defined in [RFC5222] or in another profile whose
  definition provides instructions concerning its use with this
  extension but this MUST be the same profile as the location in the
  query.  [...]

I think a comma or other punctuation before "but" would aid readability.

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

The IANA Functions Operator has completed its review of draft-ietf-ecrit-similar-location-17. If any part of this review is inaccurate, please let us know.

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

First, in the schema registry on the IETF XML Registry page located at:

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

a new schema will be registered as follows:

ID: lost-rli1
URI: urn:ietf:params:xml:schema:lost-rli1
Filename: [ TBD-at-Registration ]
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

As this document requests registrations in a Specification Required (see RFC 8126) registry, we will initiate the required Expert Review via a separate request. This review must be completed before the document's IANA state can be changed to "IANA OK."

Second, in the ns registry also on the IETF XML Registry page located at:

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

a new namespace will be registered as follows:

ID: lost-rli1
URI: urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:lost-rli1
Filename: [ TBD-at-Registration ]
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

IANA notes the XML provided in section 8.2 of the current draft.

As this also requests registrations in a Specification Required (see RFC 8126) registry, we will initiate the required Expert Review via a separate request. This review must be completed before the document's IANA state can be changed to "IANA OK."

The IANA Functions Operator understands that these are the only actions required to be completed upon approval of this document.

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

Thank you,

Sabrina Tanamal
Lead IANA Services Specialist

The following Last Call announcement was sent out (ends 2022-02-09):

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC: draft-ietf-ecrit-similar-location@ietf.org, dwightpurtle@gmail.com, ecrit-chairs@ietf.org, ecrit@ietf.org, superuser@gmail.com
Reply-To: last-call@ietf.org
Sender:
Subject: Last Call:  (A LoST extension to return complete and similar location info) 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
LoST extension to return complete and similar location info'
  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
last-call@ietf.org mailing lists by 2022-02-09. 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


  This document introduces a new way to provide returned location
  information in LoST responses that is either of a completed or
  similar form to the original input civic location, based on whether
  valid or invalid civic address elements are returned within the
    message.  This document defines a new extension
  to the  message within the LoST protocol
  (RFC5222) that enables the LoST protocol to return in a response a
  completed civic address element set for a valid location response,
  and one or more suggested sets of similar location information for an
  invalid location.  These two types of civic addresses are referred to
  as either "complete location" or "similar location", and are included
  as a compilation of CAtype XML elements within the existing LoST
    message structure.




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



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

As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document
Shepherd Write-Up. Changes are expected over time.

This version is dated 1 November 2019.

(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 it extends a standards-track RFC (RFC 5222); 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-similar-location defines a new extension to the  message within
the LoST protocol (RFC5222) that enables the LoST protocol to return in a response a completed civic
address element set for a valid location response, and one or more suggested sets of similar location
information for an invalid location.  One use case is that of location-based emergency calling.
The use of this protocol extension facilitates the timely correction of errors, and allows location
servers to be more easily provisioned with complete address information.

Working Group Summary:

This document was reviewed by a large number of people during its development.  Toward the end it
received a number of comments from a small number of people, and their comments (mostly editorial)
were carefully considered and resolved with good 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 location-based
emergency call routing have multiple vendors interested in implementation of this protocol.

Personnel:

Who is the Document Shepherd? Who is the Responsible Area Director?

Dwight Purtle is the Document Shepherd.  Murray Kucherawy 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.  Recent detailed reviews by
several participants led to only minor corrections and editorial changes.  This document has been in
development for a long time.

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

I have no concerns with the depth or breadth of reviews.  Many experts have reviewed it in detail.
It 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.  The Responsible Area Director is well aware of this document.

(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?

All three authors have confirmed that all appropriate IPR disclosures have been completed.

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

No IPR disclosures have been filed that reference this document.

(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.  A Working Group Last Call
was performed which did not reveal any new or outstanding issues other than a few editorial
changes.  The working group co-chairs are satisfied that there is consensus.

(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.)

There have been no threats or expressed discontent.

(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.

When Submission Checks were done no errors were found.  Verbose Output only showed two comments about
pre-RFC5378 work because this document references RFC5222.  However, this document merely extends and
does not modify RFC5222.

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

No additional formal reviews are required.

(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?

There is a normative reference to [I-D.ietf-ecrit-lost-planned-changes] which is under review by the WG
and should be advanced soon.

(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.

There are no downward normative references.

(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.

This document will not change the status of any existing RFCs.

(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).

Appropriate registrations are included.  Referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified.

(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, YANG modules, etc.

XML was checked using https://www.w3schools.com/xml/xml_validator.asp and https://www.xmlvalidation.com/,
and wg members who are conversant with XML reviewed the sections.

(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?

No YANG module.

As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document
Shepherd Write-Up. Changes are expected over time.

This version is dated 1 November 2019.

(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 it extends a standards-track RFC (RFC 5222);
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-similar-location defines a new extension to the  message within
the LoST protocol (RFC5222) that enables the LoST protocol to return in a response a completed civic
address element set for a valid location response, and one or more suggested sets of similar location
information for an invalid location.  One use case is that of location-based emergency calling.
The use of this protocol extension facilitates the timely correction of errors, and allows location
servers to be more easily provisioned with complete address information.

Working Group Summary:

This document was reviewed by a large number of people during its development.  Toward the end it
received a number of comments from a small number of people, and their comments (mostly editorial)
were carefully considered and resolved with good 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 location-based
emergency call routing have multiple vendors interested in implementation of this protocol.

Personnel:

Who is the Document Shepherd? Who is the Responsible Area Director?

Dwight Purtle is the Document Shepherd.  Murray Kucherawy 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.  Recent detailed reviews by
several participants led to only minor corrections and editorial changes.  This document has been in
development for a long time.

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

I have no concerns with the depth or breadth of reviews.  Many experts have reviewed it in detail.
It 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.  The Responsible Area Director is well aware of this document.

(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?

All three authors have confirmed that all appropriate IPR disclosures have been completed.

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

No IPR disclosures have been filed that reference this document.

(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.  A Working Group Last Call
was performed which did not reveal any new or outstanding issues other than a few editorial
changes.  The working group co-chairs are satisfied that there is consensus.

(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.)

There have been no threats or expressed discontent.

(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.

When Submission Checks were done no errors were found.  Verbose Output only showed two comments about
pre-RFC5378 work because this document references RFC5222.  However, this document merely extends and
does not modify RFC5222.

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

No additional formal reviews are required.

(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?

There is a normative reference to [I-D.ietf-ecrit-lost-planned-changes] which is under review by the WG
and should be advanced soon.

(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.

There are no downward normative references.

(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.

This document will not change the status of any existing RFCs.

(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).

Appropriate registrations are included.  Referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified.

(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, YANG modules, etc.

XML was checked using https://www.w3schools.com/xml/xml_validator.asp and https://www.xmlvalidation.com/,
and wg members who are conversant with XML reviewed the sections.

(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?

No YANG module.

As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document
Shepherd Write-Up. Changes are expected over time.

This version is dated 1 November 2019.

(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-similar-location defines a new extension to the  message within
the LoST protocol (RFC5222) that enables the LoST protocol to return in a response a completed civic
address element set for a valid location response, and one or more suggested sets of similar location
information for an invalid location.  One use case is that of location-based emergency calling.
The use of this protocol extension facilitates the timely correction of errors, and allows location
servers to be more easily provisioned with complete address information.

Working Group Summary:

This document was reviewed by a large number of people during its development.  Toward the end it
received a number of comments from a small number of people, and their comments (mostly editorial)
were carefully considered and resolved with good 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 location-based
emergency call routing have multiple vendors interested in implementation of this protocol.

Personnel:

Who is the Document Shepherd? Who is the Responsible Area Director?

Dwight Purtle is the Document Shepherd.  Murray Kucherawy 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.  Recent detailed reviews by
several participants led to only minor corrections and editorial changes.  This document has been in
development for a long time.

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

I have no concerns with the depth or breadth of reviews.  Many experts have reviewed it in detail.
It 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.  The Responsible Area Director is well aware of this document.

(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?

All three authors have confirmed that all appropriate IPR disclosures have been completed.

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

No IPR disclosures have been filed that reference this document.

(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.  A Working Group Last Call
was performed which did not reveal any new or outstanding issues other than a few editorial
changes.  The working group co-chairs are satisfied that there is consensus.

(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.)

There have been no threats or expressed discontent.

(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.

When Submission Checks were done no errors were found.  Verbose Output only showed two comments about
pre-RFC5378 work because this document references RFC5222.  However, this document merely extends and
does not modify RFC5222.

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

(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?

There is a normative reference to [I-D.ietf-ecrit-lost-planned-changes] which is under review by the WG
and should be advanced soon.

(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.

There are no downward normative references.

(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.

This document will not change the status of any existing RFCs.

(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).

Appropriate registrations are included.  Referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified.

(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, YANG modules, etc.

XML was checked using https://www.w3schools.com/xml/xml_validator.asp and https://www.xmlvalidation.com/,
and wg members who are conversant with XML reviewed the sections.

(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?

No YANG module.

As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document
Shepherd Write-Up. Changes are expected over time.

This version is dated 1 November 2019.

(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-similar-location defines a new extension to the  message within
the LoST protocol (RFC5222) that enables the LoST protocol to return in a response a completed civic
address element set for a valid location response, and one or more suggested sets of similar location
information for an invalid location.  One use case is that of location-based emergency calling.
The use of this protocol extension facilitates the timely correction of errors, and allows location
servers to be more easily provisioned with complete address information.

Working Group Summary:

This document was reviewed by a large number of people during its development.  Toward the end it
received a number of comments from a small number of people, and their comments (mostly editorial)
were carefully considered and resolved with good 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 location-based
emergency call routing have multiple vendors interested in implementation of this protocol.

Personnel:

Who is the Document Shepherd? Who is the Responsible Area Director?

Dwight Purtle is the Document Shepherd.  Murray Kucherawy 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.  Recent detailed reviews by
several participants led to only minor corrections and editorial changes.  This document has been in
development for a long time.

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

I have no concerns with the depth or breadth of reviews.  Many experts have reviewed it in detail.
It 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.  The Responsible Area Director is well aware of this document.

(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?

All three authors have confirmed that all appropriate IPR disclosures have been completed.

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

No IPR disclosures have been filed that reference this document.

(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.  A Working Group Last Call
was performed which did not reveal any new or outstanding issues other than a few editorial
changes.  The working group co-chairs are satisfied that there is consensus.

(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.)

There have been no threats or expressed discontent.

(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.

When Submission Checks were done no errors were found.  Verbose Output only showed two comments about
pre-RFC5378 work because this document references RFC5222.  However, this document merely extends and
does not modify RFC5222.

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

(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?

There is a normative reference to [I-D.ietf-ecrit-lost-planned-changes] which is under review by the WG
and should be advanced soon.

(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.

There are no downward normative references.

(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.

This document will not change the status of any existing RFCs.

(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).

Appropriate registrations are included.  Referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified.

(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, YANG modules, etc.

XML was checked using https://www.w3schools.com/xml/xml_validator.asp and https://www.xmlvalidation.com/,
and wg members who are conversant with XML reviewed the sections.

(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?

No YANG module.