Prefix elements for Road and House Numbers in PIDF-LO
draft-ietf-geopriv-prefix-00

[Ballot comment]
Section 2.1., paragraph 1:
>    [RFC2119]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
>              Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.

  Unused Reference: 'RFC2119' is defined on line 113, but no explicit
  reference was found in the text

IANA questions/comments:

- In the allocation request you do not specify whether these new types
are defined for NENA or PIDF (or both), nor do you provide any
Examples of their use. Can you please be more explicit about how
you want these items registered?

Upon approval of this document, IANA will make the following assignments
in the "CAtypes" registry at
http://www.iana.org/assignments/civic-address-types-registry

CAtype NENA PIDF Description Examples Reference
------ ----- ------- ----------------------------- ---------- ---------
TBD[41] ??? STP Street (Road) Prefix ???
[RFC-geopriv-prefix-00]
TBD[42] ??? HNP House Number Prefix ???
[RFC-geopriv-prefix-00]


We understand the above to be the only IANA Actions for this document.

The GEOPRIV working group requests publication of draft-ietf-geopriv-
prefix as Proposed Standard.

(1.a) Who is the Document Shepherd for this document? Has the
Document Shepherd personally reviewed this version of the
document and, in particular, does he or she believe this
version is ready for forwarding to the IESG for publication?

The Document Shepherd for this document is Alissa Cooper. The Shepherd
has personally reviewed this version of the document, and believes it
is ready for publication.

(1.b) Has the document had adequate review both from key WG members
and from key non-WG members? Does the Document Shepherd have
any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that
have been performed?

This document has been the subject of adequate review within the
GEOPRIV WG and the emergency calling community. Given the narrow scope
of the document, I have no concerns about the level of review it has
received.

(1.c) Does the Document Shepherd have concerns that the document
needs more review from a particular or broader perspective,
e.g., security, operational complexity, someone familiar with
AAA, internationalization or XML?

I do not believe that this document requires any special review. It
performs the very simple function of defining two new civic address
fields.

(1.d) Does the Document Shepherd have any specific concerns or
issues 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. Has an IPR disclosure related to this document
been filed? If so, please include a reference to the
disclosure and summarize the WG discussion and conclusion on
this issue.

I have no special concerns about this document. There have been no
IPR disclosures related to the document.

(1.e) 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 general consensus within the working group that the fields
this document standardizes are necessary.

(1.f) 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
entered into the ID Tracker.)

I am not aware of any extreme discontent or potential appeals related
to this document.

(1.g) Has the Document Shepherd personally verified that the
document satisfies all ID nits? (See
http://www.ietf.org/ID-Checklist.html and
http://tools.ietf.org/tools/idnits/). Boilerplate checks are
not enough; this check needs to be thorough. Has the document
met all formal review criteria it needs to, such as the MIB
Doctor, media type and URI type reviews?

I have verified that the the document satisfies nearly all ID nits.
There is one extraneous reference that can easily be removed.

(1.h) Has the document split its references into normative and
informative? 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
strategy for their completion? Are there normative references
that are downward references, as described in [RFC3967]? If
so, list these downward references to support the Area
Director in the Last Call procedure for them [RFC3967].

References are split into normative and informative. There are no
downward references or references to documents with unclear status.


(1.i) Has the Document Shepherd verified that the document IANA
consideration section exists and is consistent with the body
of the document? If the document specifies protocol
extensions, are reservations requested in appropriate IANA
registries? Are the IANA registries clearly identified? If
the document creates a new registry, does it define the
proposed initial contents of the registry and an allocation
procedure for future registrations? Does it suggest a
reasonable name for the new registry? See [RFC5226]. If the
document describes an Expert Review process has Shepherd
conferred with the Responsible Area Director so that the IESG
can appoint the needed Expert during the IESG Evaluation?

The IANA considerations section exists, and provides instructions for
IANA to register the two new civic address types in the registry
established by RFC 4776.

(1.j) Has the Document Shepherd verified that sections of the
document that are written in a formal language, such as XML
code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc., validate correctly in
an automated checker?

The document contains no formal language.

(1.k) 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

While the civic address type registry defined by RFC4119 and updated
by RFC5139 defines suffixes for street names and house numbers, it
does not define prefixes. This document defines two new civic address
fields that are regularly used in addressing: street prefix and house
number prefix.


Working Group Summary

There is consensus in the working group that the prefix fields this
document defines are necessary.


Document Quality

This is a simple, brief document that has been reviewed by key working
group members.