The Management Policy of the Resource Priority Header (RPH) Registry Changed to "IETF Review"
draft-rosen-rph-reg-policy-01

[Ballot discuss]
The third sentence of Section 1 is broader than the action that the document takes. Is this document an appropriate place to make a broad statement across many IETF registries?

[Ballot comment]

4412 section 9 says:

"A new namespace MUST be defined in a Standards Track
RFC, following the 'Standards Action' policy in
[RFC2434], and MUST include the following facets:..."

Followed by a long list. Does this mean that that second
MUST still applies, but those need to be stated in the
registration?  If yes, that's fine but worth saying. If
no, then it definitely needs saying because someone could
ask where all those things are defined.

And one of those things is the IETF reference document,
so I'm not sure what we're saving here really if we still
need an RFC.

But I guess there's a reason.

[Ballot comment]
Thanks for an admirably short document.

I think the Abstract would be clearer by not stating the old management
policies because when you do so, there is ambiguity about what the
resultant policy is (you have a statement that the policy is foo and a
statement that the policy is changed to bar). I suggest...

  This document updates RFC 4412 by changing tha IANA management policy
  of the "Resource-Priority Namespaces" and "Resource-Priority
  Priority-values" registries to "IETF Review".

---

Similarly in the Introduction

OLD
  The management policy of these
  registries is "Standards Action" as defined in [RFC5226].
NEW
  The management policy of these
  registries defined by RFC 4412 was "Standards Action" as defined in
  [RFC5226].
END

[Ballot comment]
ti -> to in the abstract.

OLD:

  RFC4412 defines "Resource-Priority Namespaces" and "Resource-Priority
  Priority-values" registries.  The management policy of these
  registries is "Standards Action".  This document normatively updates
  RFC4412 ti change the management policy of these registries to "IETF
  Review".

NEW:
  RFC4412 defines "Resource-Priority Namespaces" and "Resource-Priority
  Priority-values" registries.  The management policy of these
  registries is "Standards Action".  This document normatively updates
  RFC4412 to change the management policy of these registries to "IETF
  Review".

IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

IANA has reviewed draft-rosen-rph-reg-policy-01.  Authors should review the comments and/or questions below.  Please report any inaccuracies and respond to any questions as soon as possible.

IANA's reviewer has the following comments/questions:

IANA has questions about the IANA actions requested in this document.

IANA understands that, upon approval of this document, there are two
actions which must be completed.

First, in the Resource-Priority Namespaces sub-registry of
the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) Parameters registry located at:

http://www.iana.org/assignments/sip-parameters

IANA is requested to update the registration procedure from
"Standards Action" to "IETF Review" as per this document.

QUESTION: should this document replace the current listed reference
[RFC4412] in the registry?

Second, in Resource-Priority Priority-values sub-registry of
the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) Parameters registry located at:

http://www.iana.org/assignments/sip-parameters

IANA is requested to update the registration procedure from
"Standards Action" to "IETF Review" as per this document.

QUESTION:
- Should this document replace the current listed reference
[RFC4412] in the registry?

IANA understands that these are the only actions required to be
completed upon approval of this document.

Note:  The actions requested in this document will not be completed
until the document has been approved for publication as an RFC.
This message is only to confirm what actions will be performed.

The following Last Call announcement was sent out:

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC:
Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org
Sender:
Subject: Last Call:  (Resource Priority Header (RPH) Registry Management Policy to IETF Review) to Proposed Standard


The IESG has received a request from the Session Initiation Protocol Core
WG (sipcore) to consider the following document:
- 'Resource Priority Header (RPH) Registry Management Policy to IETF
  Review'
  as Proposed Standard

The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the
ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2013-12-09. Exceptionally, comments may be
sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the
beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting.

Abstract


  RFC4412 defines "Resource-Priority Namespaces" and "Resource-Priority
  Priority-values" registries.  The management policy of these
  registries is "Standards Action".  This document normatively updates
  RFC4412 ti change the management policy of these registries to "IETF
  Review".




The file can be obtained via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-rosen-rph-reg-policy/

IESG discussion can be tracked via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-rosen-rph-reg-policy/ballot/


No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D.

Below, please find the document write-up for draft-rosen-rph-reg-policy-01.

(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?

The document is proposed to be a Standards Track publication. This
designation is requested because the contents comprise a normative update
to RFC 4412, which is itself 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:

    Technical Summary:

      RFC4412 defines "Resource-Priority Namespaces" and "Resource-Priority
      Priority-values" registries.  The management policy of these registries
      is "Standards Action".  This document normatively updates RFC4412 to
      change the management policy of these registries to "IETF Review".

    Working Group Summary:

      Discussion in the SIPCORE working group was minimal. Aside from some
      editorial changes, the only substantive comment was a request for
      further clarifications to RFC 4412. The suggested  additional work
      was not taken on in this document.

    Document Quality:

      The document is a trivial update to RFC 4412, and its purpose is clear
      and unambiguous.  The document is administrative in nature, and as such
      does not propose protocol mechanisms.

    Personnel:

      Adam Roach is the document shepherd. Richard Barnes is the
      responsible area director.

(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 document shepherd has read the entire document carefully and believes
that it serves its intended purpose and is ready for publication.

Please see the RFC editor notes at the end of this write-up for some
editorial corrections.

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

Given the nature of this document, the shepherd believes that the level of
review that has been undertaken is sufficient.

(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.

No.

(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.

The shepherd has 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, the author has confirmed that any necessary IPR disclosures have been
filed.

(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If so,
    summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures.

No IPR notices have been filed on this document or its predecessors.

(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?

Review in the working group was sparse; however, there was no objection in
the working group to its publication. Given its administrative nature,
the level of interest in this document by the working group is as expected.

(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 discontent has been expressed.

(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 document passes a nits check.

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

This document has had no additional formal reviews.

(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.

The document updates RFC 4412, but does not change its status.

(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).

This document does not create or add any entries to IANA registries. It does,
however, update the registration policy for two tables. Both the tables
and the new policy are clearly identified.

(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.

No expert review is established by this document.

(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.

No formal language is defined by this document.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Additional information:

During the processing of draft-polk-local-emergency-rph-namespace, the IESG,
authors, and WG chairs determined that the policy described in RFC4412,
section 9 for defining a new namespace (Standards-Track RFC) was probably
selected in error, and that "IETF Review" is likely more appropriate. This
information was provided to both the ECRIT and SIPCORE working groups, and
no objection to a change in policy was raised. This document is the result of
those proposed changes.

Note that draft-polk-local-emergency-rph-namespace is currently pending
publication, blocked on this document. draft-polk-local-emergency-rph-namespace
is, in turn, a 3GPP dependency.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

RFC Editor Notes:

Please update the abstract as follows;

OLD:
  RFC4412 ti change the management policy of these registries to "IETF

NEW:
  RFC4412 to change the management policy of these registries to "IETF
          ^^

Please update section section 2 as follows;

OLD:
  This document does not introduce any the security considerations

NEW:
  This document does not introduce any security considerations
                                      ^^^