Changes are expected over time. This version is dated 1 November 2019.
(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?
[Shepherd] A "Proposed Standard" is requested. This is the proper type of RFC given WG consensus. The "Proposed Status" RFC type is indicated in Datatracker. The title page says that the Intended status is "Standards Track".
(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:
Relevant content can frequently be found in the abstract and/or introduction of the document. If not, this may be an indication that there are deficiencies in the abstract or introduction.
[Shepherd] (from the Abstract)
This document defines a generic geographical location object YANG
grouping. The geographical location grouping is intended to be used
in YANG models for specifying a location on or in reference to Earth
or any other astronomical object.
Working Group Summary:
Was there anything in WG process that is worth noting? For example, was there controversy about particular points or were there decisions where the consensus was particularly rough?
[Shepherd] There were no noteworthy WG process issues. Controversial points were resolved. No items had particularly rough consensus.
Are there existing implementations of the protocol? Have a significant number of vendors indicated their plan to implement the specification? Are there any reviewers that merit special mention as having done a thorough review, e.g., one that resulted in important changes or a conclusion that the document had no substantive issues? If there was a MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, Media Type or other expert review, what was its course (briefly)? In the case of a Media Type review, on what date was the request posted?
[Shepherd] There are no known implementations known to the Shepherd. No vendors have indicated their plan to implement the specification. It was originally forwarded to support DT's Terra Stream project.
Who is the Document Shepherd? Who is the Responsible Area Director?
[Shepherd] The Shepherd is Kent Watsen. The Responsible Area Director is Robert Wilton.
(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.
[Shepherd] The Shepherd has read the document, validated the normative YANG module found in Section 3, and validated both the example YANG module and example XML document found in Appendix A.
(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed?
[Shepherd] The Shepherd does not have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed.
(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.
[Shepherd] The draft had additional review by non-IETF experts Ben Koziol and Jim Biard:
Ben Koziol - NOAA Affiliate <email@example.com>
University of Colorado
Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences at the
NOAA Earth System Research Laboratory/Global Systems Division
Jim Biard <firstname.lastname@example.org>
North Carolina State University
North Carolina Institute for Climate Studies (NCICS
(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.
[Shepherd] I wish that Section 2.4. (Nested Locations) prodided an example using nested alternate coordinate sysrtems. For instance, a data center building has a "street address", it's composed of “floors” that contain “rooms” or “cages”, that contain “racks” to hold equipment in “bays”, etc. The draft compares itself to related work, but it is unclear if any of those system support nesting alternate coordinate systems such as those described, or even if it would make sense to do so.
(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?
[Shepherd] Yes (https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netmod/6OGBXDIFMZybUi5I0SmzNVnH1qc)
(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures.
[Shepherd] No IPR disclosure has been filed that references 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?
[Shepherd] The whole WG adopted the effort. Strong concurrence of a few individuals worked out the details.
(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.)
[Shepherd] No one has threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent.
(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.
[Shepherd] According to IDNITS with "verbose checking":
/tmp/draft-ietf-netmod-geo-location-07.txt(316): Code start at 316: <CODE BEGINS> file "email@example.com".
/tmp/draft-ietf-netmod-geo-location-07.txt(626): Code end at 626: <CODE ENDS>.
/tmp/draft-ietf-netmod-geo-location-07.txt(992): Line has weird spacing: '... name ietf-...'
/tmp/draft-ietf-netmod-geo-location-07.txt(994): Line has weird spacing: '...mespace urn:i...'
/tmp/draft-ietf-netmod-geo-location-07.txt(996): Line has weird spacing: '... prefix geo...'
/tmp/draft-ietf-netmod-geo-location-07.txt(1248): Line is too long: the offending characters are '?'
Checking boilerplate required by RFC 5378 and the IETF Trust (see
No issues found here.
Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/1id-guidelines.txt:
No issues found here.
Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist :
** There is 1 instance of too long lines in the document, the longest one
being 1 character in excess of 72.
-- The document date (June 2021) is 173 days in the future. Is this
Checking references for intended status: Proposed Standard
(See RFCs 3967 and 4897 for information about using normative references
to lower-maturity documents in RFCs)
-- Possible downref: Non-RFC (?) normative reference: ref. 'EGM08'
-- Possible downref: Non-RFC (?) normative reference: ref. 'EGM96'
-- Possible downref: Non-RFC (?) normative reference: ref. 'WGS84'
Summary: 1 error (**), 0 flaws (~~), 0 warnings (==), 4 comments (--).
Of these, the only real issue is the "line too long" issue, which the RFC Editor should catch. Some of the other "issues" are actually NOT issues at all (e.g., the future date, down refs, etc.)
(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.
[Shepherd] The document was reviewed by a YANG Doctor: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/review-ietf-netmod-geo-location-04-yangdoctors-lc-jethanandani-2020-03-23
(13) Have all references within this document been identified as either normative or informative?
[Shepherd] Yes, all the references have 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?
[Shepherd] All normative documents are fully published. Some normative documents are by other SDOs.
(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.
[Shepherd] There are no downward references. The down-refs caught by IDNITS are because those references are published by external SDOs.
(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.
[Shepherd] The publication of this document does 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 8126).
[Shepherd] The Shepherd has reviewed the IANA Considerations section. In addition to the two standard registrations made by any document publishing YANG modules, the document also defines a new "Geodetic System Values" registry.
(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.
[Shepherd] No new registriries require Expert Review for future allocations.
(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, YANG modules, etc.
[Shepherd] The Shepherd has validated the normative YANG module found in Section 3, and validated both the example YANG module and the example instance XML document found in Appendix A.
(20) If the document contains a YANG module, has the module been checked with any of the recommended validation tools (https://trac.ietf.org/trac/ops/wiki/yang-review-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 RFC8342?
[Shepherd] The Shepherd used the following command to check the "style" correctness of the YANG module. A few discrepancies appeared, but none seemed overly egregious to the Shepherd:
$ pyang -f yang --keep-comments --yang-line-length 69 firstname.lastname@example.org > tmp; diff email@example.com tmp