(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?
-> Informational. The document illustrates that LDACS has the properties that
are needed to support RAW but RAW doesn’t place any special requirement that
would require normative text. In fact, RAW is not even chartered to specify
anything so far and produces only informational documents. See also my WG
summary below.
(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 provides an overview of the architecture of the L-band Digital
Aeronautical Communications System (LDACS), which is a wireless
communication standard defined outside of the IETF and relevant to the work
at the RAW WG.
LDACS provides a secure, scalable and spectrum efficient terrestrial data link
for civil aviation, based on a scheduled, reliable multi-application cellular
broadband system with support for IPv6. It is expected to become a data link of
choice for IP network-based aircraft guidance for which the RAW properties of
high reliability and availability are essential.
Working Group Summary:
The process was as smooth as possible, with no contradiction over the ML or
during meetings. The document is really the description by matter specialists
of an externally-defined link-layer. It is a useful base for the RAW work and
good information for the rest of us.
Document Quality:
LDACS is an emerging technology; prototypes were presented, see
https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/9397802. The draft was written by the
technology specialists. It is very readable and quite thorough.
Personnel:
Document Shepherd: Pascal Thubert
Responsible Area Director: John Scudder
(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 performed a full review of the documents and the comments were
addressed. No major issue reported. The document appears ready for publication
request.
(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of
the reviews that have been performed?
Not at all!
(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 would be cool that the security model in their Tesla mechanism be validated;
but then again this is not an IETF-defined standard.
(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 thing
(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, they all confirmed; there is no IPR to report on that document; there
might be IPR on the presented technology.
(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If so,
summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures.
No disclosure
(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?
The former; it’s a good read but not a standard being developed in-house.
(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 such thing
(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.
Nothing worth mentioning; an unused reference to RFC 2119 will be removed
(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such
as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.
No such need
(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?
Only RFCs
(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.
None
(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 8126).
No IANA request
(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.
None
(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.
No such need
(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?
No such need