Skip to main content

Shepherd writeup
rfc7105-09

(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.  Proposed Standard is
appropriate because this document defines an extension to a current Proposed
Standard RFC (RFC 5985).  The title page header indicates that the document is
to be Standards Track.

(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:

   A method is described by which a Device is able to provide location-
   related measurement data to a LIS within a request for location
   information.  Location-related measurement information are
   observations concerning properties related to the position of a
   Device, which could be data about network attachment or about the
   physical environment.  When a LIS generates location information for
   a Device, information from the Device can improve the accuracy of the
   location estimate.  A basic set of location-related measurements are
   defined, including common modes of network attachment as well as
   assisted Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS) parameters.

Working Group Summary:

There is strong consensus around this document in the working group.  It is
required for the HELD protocol to meet many use cases that are satisfied with
proprietary protocols today.

Document Quality:

There are a few existing prototype implementations of the protocol.  Prototype
implementations were deployed at a few IETF meetings.  The document references
standards from several other SDOs, so the authors solicited reviews by experts
on the relevant standards.  The document has been updated to the satisfaction
of those experts.

Personnel:

The Document Shepherd is Alissa Cooper.
The responsible Area Director is Richard Barnes.

(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 have reviewed this document, and find it clear and implementable.

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

I do not have concerns about the depth or breadth of review that has been
performed.

(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.

This document defines new XML data structures, and extends the HELD schema (RFC
5985).  It has not been reviewed by the XML directorate, but its use of XML is
straightforward enough that I do not believe a review to be necessary.

(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 do not have any specific 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?

All authors have confirmed that all relevent IPR disclosures have been filed.

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

One IPR disclosure has been filed against this document.  There was some
discussion of the disclosure, and the WG agreed that it should not be blocking
for 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?

There is strong consensus for this document.  Several WG participants have
expressed the opinion that it address a necessary use case.

(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 are no threatened appeals.

(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.

There are a few reference issues that need to be fixed: the RFC 0020 reference
should be removed, and the ASCII reference does not display properly.
Otherwise, the document has no nits.

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

This document does not require any formal reviews.

(13) Have all references within this document been identified as either
normative or informative?

Yes.  References are divided into normative and informative.

(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.

This document does 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 document's IANA Considerations section correctly registers all parameters
required by the document.

(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.

The document creates a new IANA registry for GNSS types, operating under
"Specification Required" rules. As the registration space is not a scarce
resource, the bar for the designated expert's expertise need not be especially
high. The designee need not be an expert in GNSS systems; the key is to find
someone capable of detecting unsubtle attempts at fraud or obvious duplication.

(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.

I have validated that all XML schemas are valid, and all XML examples are
well-formed, using the W3C online XML validator.
Back