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
<findServiceResponse> 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.