Shepherd writeup
rfc7545-20

As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document 
Shepherd Write-Up.

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?

This document is intended to be published as proposed standard, as indicated in the title page header. 

(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

 Portions of the radio spectrum that are allocated to licensees are
   available for non-interfering use. Allowing secondary users access to available spectrum "unlocks" existing spectrum to maximize its utilization and to provide opportunities for innovation, resulting in greater overall spectrum utilization.
 One approach to manage spectrum sharing uses databases to report spectrum availability to devices.  To achieve interoperability among multiple devices and databases, a standardized protocol must be defined and implemented.  This document defines such a protocol, the "Protocol to Access White Space (PAWS) Databases".

Working Group Summary

During the design of the protocol, in earlier phases, there was some controversy, even deadlock at some point over a few points. But things got sorted out, and for the last 3 versions of the document there were no substantial comments, the wg has consensus on the current content of the document.

Document Quality

During private conversations, several mailing list members indicated to me that they have an implementation of a version of the protocol, but none came forward publicly with their implementations yet, and there was no request to hold an interop event.


Personnel

Document Shepherd is Gabor Bajko.
Responsible Area  Director is Pete Resnick.

(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.

I reviewed the document and my comments were  incorporated. It is the Document Shepherd's belief that the document is ready for IESG review.


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

No. Several people reviewed the document.


(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.

An in-depth review by a JSON expert might be useful. 

(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 such 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.

Yes, there were 2 IPR disclosures filed that reference this document.
They were discussed in the WG, and nobody came forward to say that they'd like to change anything in the document because of the disclosures.

(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?   

It is the Document Shepherd's understanding that the WG has consensus on the 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.) 

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.

The latest version does not have any ID nits.

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

N/A.

(13) Have all references within this document been identified as
either normative or informative?

Yes.

(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.

No.

(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).

No protocol extensions in the document.
IANA registries have been identified.
the newly proposed 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. A quick doublecheck with IANA was also done.

(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.

3 new IANA regitries are proposed:
PAWS Parameters Registry
PAWS Ruleset ID Registry
PAWS Error Code Registry
They all require Expert Review for inclusion of additional parameters.

(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 JSON examples were validated.
Back