RAW use-cases
draft-ietf-raw-use-cases-05
Revision differences
Document history
| Date | Rev. | By | Action |
|---|---|---|---|
|
2022-03-08
|
05 | Rick Taylor | Based on: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-raw-use-cases-04 (1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? Why is this the proper … Based on: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-raw-use-cases-04 (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? Standard Track is mentioned, but reading it I assume “Informational” is meant. Request is send out. (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 wireless medium presents significant specific challenges to achieve properties similar to those of wired deterministic networks. At the same time, a number of use-cases cannot be solved with wires and justify the extra effort of going wireless. This document presents wireless use-cases (such as aeronautical communications, amusement parks, industrial applications, pro audio and video, gaming, UAV and V2V control, edge robotics and emergency vehicles) demanding reliable and available behavior. Working Group Summary: The process was as smooth as possible, with no contradiction over the ML or during meetings. The document mentions the main identified use-cases demanding reliability and availability for the wireless communication used and points our challenges in request in parallel. Document Quality: The document underwent several iterations by involved experts of the different use-cases and results in a well written version with manifold references to further details beyond the document’s scope. Overall it is very readable and quite thorough. Personnel: Document Shepherd: Corinna Schmitt Responsible Area Director: John Scudder: https://datatracker.ietf.org/person/jgs@juniper.net (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 document, 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. Not needed. Only recommendation would be to include references to other IETF documents related to it. E.g. LDACS would benefit of a link to the current document(https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-raw-ldacs) that is under review for RFC handling. This should be done for the other use-cases as well if appropriate. (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 itself; 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 WG as a whole understand and agree with it. (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 (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(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 requests (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 |
|
2022-03-08
|
05 | Rick Taylor | Responsible AD changed to John Scudder |
|
2022-03-08
|
05 | Rick Taylor | IETF WG state changed to Submitted to IESG for Publication from In WG Last Call |
|
2022-03-08
|
05 | Rick Taylor | IESG state changed to Publication Requested from I-D Exists |
|
2022-03-08
|
05 | Rick Taylor | IESG process started in state Publication Requested |
|
2022-02-23
|
05 | Carlos Bernardos | New version available: draft-ietf-raw-use-cases-05.txt |
|
2022-02-23
|
05 | (System) | New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Carlos Bernardos) |
|
2022-02-23
|
05 | Carlos Bernardos | Uploaded new revision |
|
2022-02-23
|
04 | Eve Schooler | Intended Status changed to Informational from None |
|
2022-02-23
|
04 | Corinna Schmitt | Based on: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-raw-use-cases-04 (1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? Why is this the proper … Based on: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-raw-use-cases-04 (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? Standard Track is mentioned, but reading it I assume “Informational” is meant. Request is send out. (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 wireless medium presents significant specific challenges to achieve properties similar to those of wired deterministic networks. At the same time, a number of use-cases cannot be solved with wires and justify the extra effort of going wireless. This document presents wireless use-cases (such as aeronautical communications, amusement parks, industrial applications, pro audio and video, gaming, UAV and V2V control, edge robotics and emergency vehicles) demanding reliable and available behavior. Working Group Summary: The process was as smooth as possible, with no contradiction over the ML or during meetings. The document mentions the main identified use-cases demanding reliability and availability for the wireless communication used and points our challenges in request in parallel. Document Quality: The document underwent several iterations by involved experts of the different use-cases and results in a well written version with manifold references to further details beyond the document’s scope. Overall it is very readable and quite thorough. Personnel: Document Shepherd: Corinna Schmitt Responsible Area Director: John Scudder: https://datatracker.ietf.org/person/jgs@juniper.net (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 document, 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. Not needed. Only recommendation would be to include references to other IETF documents related to it. E.g. LDACS would benefit of a link to the current document(https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-raw-ldacs) that is under review for RFC handling. This should be done for the other use-cases as well if appropriate. (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 itself; 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 WG as a whole understand and agree with it. (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 (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(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 requests (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 |
|
2022-02-04
|
04 | Carlos Bernardos | New version available: draft-ietf-raw-use-cases-04.txt |
|
2022-02-04
|
04 | (System) | New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Carlos Bernardos) |
|
2022-02-04
|
04 | Carlos Bernardos | Uploaded new revision |
|
2022-02-03
|
03 | Rick Taylor | Notification list changed to corinna.schmitt@unibw.de because the document shepherd was set |
|
2022-02-03
|
03 | Rick Taylor | Document shepherd changed to Corinna Schmitt |
|
2022-02-02
|
03 | Rick Taylor | IETF WG state changed to In WG Last Call from WG Document |
|
2021-11-08
|
03 | Eve Schooler | Added to session: IETF-112: raw Tue-1200 |
|
2021-10-20
|
03 | Carlos Bernardos | New version available: draft-ietf-raw-use-cases-03.txt |
|
2021-10-20
|
03 | (System) | New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Carlos Bernardos) |
|
2021-10-20
|
03 | Carlos Bernardos | Uploaded new revision |
|
2021-07-12
|
02 | Carlos Bernardos | New version available: draft-ietf-raw-use-cases-02.txt |
|
2021-07-12
|
02 | (System) | New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Carlos Bernardos) |
|
2021-07-12
|
02 | Carlos Bernardos | Uploaded new revision |
|
2021-03-07
|
01 | Eve Schooler | Added to session: IETF-110: raw Mon-1300 |
|
2021-02-21
|
01 | Carlos Bernardos | New version available: draft-ietf-raw-use-cases-01.txt |
|
2021-02-21
|
01 | (System) | New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Carlos Bernardos) |
|
2021-02-21
|
01 | Carlos Bernardos | Uploaded new revision |
|
2020-11-15
|
00 | Eve Schooler | Added to session: IETF-109: raw Mon-1200 |
|
2020-10-23
|
00 | Carlos Bernardos | This document now replaces draft-bernardos-raw-use-cases instead of None |
|
2020-10-23
|
00 | Carlos Bernardos | New version available: draft-ietf-raw-use-cases-00.txt |
|
2020-10-23
|
00 | (System) | New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Carlos Bernardos) |
|
2020-10-23
|
00 | Carlos Bernardos | Uploaded new revision |