As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document
Changes are expected over time. This version is dated 24 February 2012.
(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?
## Standards Track - updates existing Standards Track RFCs 4119 and 5491
(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:
## This document describes improved semantics for expressing the uncertainty and confidence of a location object and specifies a new XML schema for describing these values within a PIDF-LO object per Standards Track RFC 4119.
Working Group Summary
## There were concerns over how a civic location might be
## "uncertain". Text was added to clarify that the context
## was civic locations that have resulted from reverse-geocoding
## measured geodetic locations.
## The document has had good levels of working group review.
## The document shepherd is Ray Bellis.
## The responsible AD is Alissa Cooper
(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
## I have checked the references and IANA actions
## I have validated the XML schema and XML examples.
## The document passes ID-nits tests
(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or
breadth of the reviews that have been performed?
## No concerns
(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
## no additional reviews required that I am aware of
(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
## no 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.
## Yes, both authors have confirmed that no IPR disclosures are required.
(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document?
If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR
## there are no IPR disclosures filed
(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 consensus is good, given the low level of participation in the WG.
(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.)
## no appeals have been threatened
(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
## none found
(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review
criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.
## the XML schema has been validated and examples checked
## for conformance thereof
(13) Have all references within this document been identified as
either normative or informative?
## Yes, and some upgraded to normative as a result of shepherd review
(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?
## no such normative references exist
(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.
(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.
## The document updates RFCs 3693, 4119 and 5491, and declares
## as such in the header and abstract (but not in the intro)
## For RFC 3693, see §2.2
## For RFCs 4119 and 5491 see the entirety of §3
(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 adds a new entry to each of the XML namespace
## registry and the XML Schema registry in apparent compliance with
## the guidelines in RFC 3688
(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.
(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.
## The XML schema has been validated, and the XML examples within validated against that schema.