Shepherd writeup
draft-ietf-geopriv-dhcp-lbyr-uri-option-19

Shepherd Writeup by Alissa Cooper -

(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?


The type of RFC being requested is Proposed Standard. This is the proper RFC
type because this draft is defining a new DHCP option and DHCP is an Internet
standards track protocol.


(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

This document creates a Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol (DHCP) Option for
transmitting a Uniform Resource Identifier (URI) that points to a client's
geolocation. The URI can be dereferenced in a separate transaction to obtain the
client's geolocation.


Working Group Summary

This document represents the consensus of the GEOPRIV working group. The
document went through several revisions in order to establish a clear
understanding of the security model surrounding location URIs passed via DHCP,
but WG participants are now satisfied with the description of the model provided
in the document.


Document Quality

This document has been extensively reviewed by GEOPRIV participants and members 
of the DHC WG. The most recent rounds of DHC reviews resulted in changes to the 
document to ensure that the options specified here do not conflict with DHCP 
lease expiration behavior or general option structure.


Personnel

Alissa Cooper is the document shepherd. Robert Sparks 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.


The shepherd conducted a thorough review of the document before submitting the
-11 version for publication in April of 2011. Since then, the document has had
further review from the DHC WG. The shepherd was involved in drafting changes to
the document to satisfy the DHC reviewers and has reviewed the final changes to
the document.


(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.


The necessary DHC reviews have already taken place.


(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.


The shepherd has no specific technical concerns with this document to which to
call attention.


(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.


The author has confirmed that no disclosures need to be filed.


(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 against this document (although there was a
message about IPR posted to IETF-Discussion on October 13, 2010).


(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? 


The GEOPRIV working group has discussed this document at length and reached
consensus about its content. Disagreements within the group have been resolved.


(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 threatened appeals or expressions of extreme discontent
against this document.


(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.


This document has no actionable nits.


(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review

criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.


No formal reviews are necessary for this document. The URI types were discussed
at length during the early life of the document.


(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 are no such references.


(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.


There are no such 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.


Publication of 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 5226).


The shepherd has verified that the document's IANA consideration section exists 
and is consistent with the body of the document. The document makes four 
requests of IANA: two v4 option numbers and two v6 option codes.


(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 proposed registries require 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, etc.


No such sections exist. 
Back