# Document History
Title: IANA Considerations and IETF Protocol and Documentation Usage for IEEE
802 Parameters
Revision: draft-ietf-intarea-rfc7042bis-09
Shepherd: Luigi Iannone (ggx@gigix.net)
Writeup Template:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/shepherdwriteup-template/workinggroup
1. Does the working group (WG) consensus represent the strong concurrence of a
few individuals, with others being silent, or did it reach broad agreement?
The mailing list archives shows that even if the number of emails in
support of the last call is not huge there were no objections in moving
this document forward. During the meetings there was a general support for
this document and the need to update RFC 7042 (which this document actually
obsoletes).
2. Was there controversy about particular points, or were there decisions where
the consensus was particularly rough?
No.
3. Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent?
If so, please summarize 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 one showed any form of discontent.
4. For protocol documents, are there existing implementations of the contents
of the document? Have a significant number of potential implementers indicated
plans to implement? Are any existing implementations reported somewhere, either
in the document itself (as RFC 7942 recommends) or elsewhere (where)?
The document does not specify a protocol.
# Additional Reviews
5. Do the contents of this document closely interact with technologies in other
IETF working groups or external organizations, and would it therefore benefit
from their review? Have those reviews occurred? If yes, describe which reviews
took place.
The content of the document interact with technologies developed by IEEE.
The latter already reviewed the document and the related statement can be
found at: https://datatracker.ietf.org/liaison/1823/
Section 2.4 of the document is about Concise Binary Object Representation
(CBOR) tags used to indicate MAC addresses and organizational idetifiers
(OUI, CID, or CF). Discussion has taken place in the CBOR WG, on wheter the
content of such section belongs elsewhere. Please refer to the thread
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/cbor/I49hlrHka1BUPAq8oCtO77xElvc/ and
the message
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/cbor/h2FGrQ7Uw0PX4NdHO7Rn07rCbtI/ .
The latter clearly indicating that the issue has been discussed in the a
CBOR WG meeting and agreed "to leave Ethernet tags for Donald's rfc7042bis.
(despite that being informational and a possible downref issue)". Minutes
of the CBORWG interim meeting can be found at:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/interim-2021-cbor-18/materials/minutes-interim-2021-cbor-18-202110061600-00.pdf
6. Describe how the document meets any required formal expert review criteria,
such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.
No formal review is required.
7. If the document contains a YANG module, has the final version of the module
been checked with any of the recommended validation 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 RFC
8342?
This document does not contain a YANG Module.
8. Describe reviews and automated checks performed to validate sections of the
final version of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code,
BNF rules, MIB definitions, CBOR's CDDL, etc.
The document does not contain anything written in a formal language, hence,
no validation and/or check has been performed.
# Document Shepherd Checks
9. Based on the shepherd's review of the document, is it their opinion that
this document is needed, clearly written, complete, correctly designed, and
ready to be handed off to the responsible Area Director?
The document is clearly written, needed, and ready to be handed off to the
responsible AD.
10. Several IETF Areas have assembled lists of common issues that their
reviewers encounter. For which areas have such issues been identified and
addressed? For which does this still need to happen in subsequent reviews?
The document does not touch any issue listed at:
https://wiki.ietf.org/group/iesg/ExpertTopics
11. What type of RFC publication is being requested on the IETF stream (Best
Current Practice, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard, Informational,
Experimental or Historic)? Why is this the proper type of RFC? Do all
Datatracker state attributes correctly reflect this intent?
This document request to be published as Best Current Practice, also shown
in the datatracker. It is because of its content and because it replaces
RFC 7042 which is also Best Current Practice.
12. Have reasonable efforts been made to remind all authors of the intellectual
property rights (IPR) disclosure obligations described in BCP 79? To the best
of your knowledge, have all required disclosures been filed? If not, explain
why. If yes, summarize any relevant discussion, including links to
publicly-available messages when applicable.
All the co-authors, during WG last call, did state explicitly that they are
not aware of any IPR related to this document. No one else did any IPR
disclosure.
13. Has each author, editor, and contributor shown their willingness to be
listed as such? If the total number of authors and editors on the front page is
greater than five, please provide a justification.
Each co-author is clearly willing to be listed as such.
14. Document any remaining I-D nits in this document. Simply running the idnits
tool is not enough; please review the "Content Guidelines" on authors.ietf.org.
(Also note that the current idnits tool generates some incorrect warnings; a
rewrite is underway.)
The idnits shows 3 comments:
- A reference misinterpretation in Appendix B.1. The text is actually
correct, no changes needed. - A non-existing downref. Reference
[IEEE802.1AB] is considered a downref by the tool because is a non-RFC
normative reference, but normative is actually the right type of reference.
- Obsolete informational reference to RFC 5342 (obsoleted by RFC 7042).
This reference is intentional and does not need to be fixed.
While reviewing this document I did not spot any other issue.
15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the IESG
Statement on Normative and Informative References.
No reference should change type.
16. List any normative references that are not freely available to anyone. Did
the community have sufficient access to review any such normative references?
Normative references [IEEE802_OandA], [IEEE802.1AB], and [IEEE.802.1Q_2014]
are not freely available. They can be either purchased individually or a
subscription to ieeexplore. However, IEEE 802 standards are available for
free download for personal use starting 6-months after their publication
under the "Get 802" program. As such the community has sufficient access to
review these documents.
17. Are there any normative downward references (see RFC 3967 and BCP 97) that
are not already listed in the DOWNREF registry? If so, list them.
No normative downward references.
s
18. Are there normative references to documents that are not ready to be
submitted to the IESG for publication or are otherwise in an unclear state? If
so, what is the plan for their completion?
No normative references are in unclear state or not ready.
19. Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs?
If so, does the Datatracker metadata correctly reflect this and are those RFCs
listed on the title page, in the abstract, and discussed in the introduction?
If not, explain why and point to the part of the document where the
relationship of this document to these other RFCs is discussed.
This document will obsolete RFC 7042, as stated in the relevant parts of
the document. In particular, changes from RFC 7042 are discussed in section
1.2 of the document. The datatracker meta-data is not yet updated (this can
be done during AD Review).
20. 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 aspects of the document requiring IANA assignments are
associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm that
any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm that each
newly created IANA registry specifies its initial contents, allocations
procedures, and a reasonable name (see RFC 8126).
The whole document is an IANA Consideration. The content is consistent. The
document does not request the creation of new registries neither any new
assignment. However, a few updates are requested to IANA, namely: - The
IANA "Ethernet Numbers" web page is re-named the "IANA OUI Ethernet
Numbers" web page. - References to [RFC7042] in IANA registries on both the
IANA IEEE 802 Numbers web page and the IANA IETF OUI Ethernet Numbers web
pages will be replaced by references to this document. - IANA is requested
to move the "IANA Link Layer Discovery Protocol (LLDP) TLV Subtypes"
Registry from the IANA IEEE 802 Numbers web page to the IANA OUI Ethernet
Numbers web page, and to add this document as an additional reference for
that registry. IANA is requested to update three entries in that Registry
as follows:
| Value | Description | Reference |
|-------|----------------------------------|-----------------|
| 0 | Reserved | [this document] |
| 42 | Example for use in documentation | [this document] |
| 255 | Reserved | [this document] |
- IANA is requested to assign two CBOR Tags:
| Tag | Data Item | Semantics | Reference |
|------|-------------|------------------|-----------------|
| TBD1 | byte string | IEEE MAC Address | [this document] |
| TBD2 | byte string | IEEE OUI/CID | [this document] |
21. List any new IANA registries that require Designated Expert Review for
future allocations. Are the instructions to the Designated Expert clear? Please
include suggestions of designated experts, if appropriate.
No new registries are created. Section 5 contains clarifications for the
Expert Review for existing registries.