(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?
A Standards Track RFC is requested. This document makes changes,
primarily of names, to IANA registries specified by Proposed Standard
RFCs. Registry assignment for future requests is also changed from
current practice to align with the change in naming.
(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 renames and makes minor changes to some
IANA registries that derive from RFC 5444. During progress of another draft
(draft-ietf-manet-olsrv2-multitopology) issues with current registry naming practices
were illustrated; specifically having different names for different TLV type extensions
was not allowed. If this naming was enforced certain TLV types would share a "name"
but otherwise be completely divergent in meaning. This draft reorganizes the registry
naming rules and does not change any protocol functionality.
Working Group Summary: This was regarded as a technical change, requested by the AD.
There was no particular interest in the draft (for or against), beyond being necessary to
progress draft (draft-ietf-manet-olsrv2-multitopology).
Document Quality: The document clearly states it's purpose, to change naming of IANA
registries for future assignments and to provide new versions of IANA registries to reflect
these rules. It does this clearly and with detail.
Personnel:
Justin Dean (jdean@itd.nrl.navy.mil) is the document shepherd for this document.
Alvaro Retana (aretana@cisco.com) is the responsible AD.
(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 has personally reviewed the document for quality and
for correctness in proposed IANA registry changes. He believes it is
ready for forwarding to the IESG for publication. While the document
only changes naming of registries this change is warranted as the current
rule set is needlessly confusing to the point of being broken.
(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or
breadth of the reviews that have been performed?
The document has had limited reviews, but has a very limited impact
(none on protocol operation). A triple check that all of the appropriate
currently assigned IANA registries have been addressed by this draft with
updated naming would be helpful.
(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.
It's the Shepherd's opinion that no further reviews are required.
(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.
No 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.
(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 that reference 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?
Working group consensus is mostly silent with most support coming from
informed individuals. The WG understands the changes this document
affects and as a whole agree that they are necessary and correct.
(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.
(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.
None.
(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review
criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.
None required.
(13) Have all references within this document been identified as
either normative or informative?
The document has only normative references.
(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.
(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.
No.
(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 updates the Expert Review guidelines from RFC5444 to
reflect the naming changes. This is listed in the introduction. This
document also appropriately renames IANA registry "Mobile Ad hoc NETwork
(MANET) Parameters" assignments from RFC5497, RFC6130, RFC7181, RFC7182,
and RFC7188. Only names are changed, numbers assigned, their meaning and
protocol functioning is not.
(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).
This document is essentially only an IANA consideration section, plus
rationale. It describes in detail the required changes for each registry
name change along with detailed listing of reference 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.
There are no new IANA registries, just renaming and changes to of
existing "Mobile Ad hoc NETwork (MANET) Parameters" registries derived
from RFC5444.
(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.
There are no sections of the document written in a formal style.