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