Shepherd writeup

(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? 

This document is an architecture and requirements document that will guide future MODERN working grouop efforts.  As such, it is requested that this be an Informational RFC.

(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:

The functions of the public switched telephone network (PSTN) are    rapidly migrating to the Internet.  This is generating new    requirements for many traditional elements of the PSTN, including    telephone numbers (TNs).  TNs no longer serve simply as telephone    routing addresses: they are now identifiers which may be used by    Internet-based services for a variety of purposes including session    establishment, identity verification, and service enablement.  This    problem statement examines how the existing tools for allocating and    managing telephone numbers do not align with the use cases of the    Internet environment, and proposes a framework for Internet-based    services relying on TNs.

Working Group Summary:

There was some controversy when the MODERN working group was formed about the scope of work for the group.  Discussions around these concerns resulted in clarifications of the architecture and requirements reflected in this document.  In the end there was strong working group consensus on the contents of this document.

Document Quality:

This document is an architecture and requirements document.  As such, it does not define a protocol or anything that can be directly implemented.


Steve Donovan is the Document Shepherd.
Adam Roach is the Responsible Area Director.

(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 document shepherd participated in the working group efforts around this document and has done multiple reviews of the document during this time.

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

There are 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 took place. 

There is no need for additional review.

(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. 

There was some controversy when the MODERN working group was formed about the scope of work for the group.  Discussions around these concerns resulted in clarifications of the architecture and requirements reflected in this document.  This has resulted in a stronger document.

(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 they do not know of any needed IPR disclosures.

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

There have been no IPR disclosures 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? 

Once the controversy around the forming of the working group was worked through, work on this document went smoothly.  As a result, there is strong WG consensus that this document should move forward.  MODERN is a small working group but the majority of participants have vocally supported this document.  

(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 known appeals pending.

(11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this document. (See and the Internet-Drafts Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be thorough. 

There are no known ID nits for this document.

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

There is no known formal review requirements outside of the MODERN working group.

(13) Have all references within this document been identified as either normative or 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 normative references in this document.

(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 downward normative references in this document.

(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. 

Publication of this document will 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). 

There are no instructions for IANA resulting from this 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. 


(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. 

None required.