Location-to-Service Translation (LoST) Service List Boundary Extension
RFC 6197

[Ballot comment]
My apologies before climbing onto the editorial soapbox, but...

This document *defines* a Service List Boundary extension, not *proposes* a Service List Boundary.  Perhaps the
-00 draft was a proposal, but this one is a technical specification.

I suggest a minor edit in the Abstract to clarify the document scope.

[Ballot comment]
My apologies before climbing onto the editorial soapbox, but...

This document *defines* a Service List Boundary extension, not *proposes* a Service List Boundary.  Perhaps the
-00 draft was a proposal, but this one is a technical specification.

[Ballot discuss]
The Gen-ART Review by Roni Even on 4-Dec-2010 included two comments,
  and the authors agreed that they needed to be addressed.  However,
  when a revised document was posted, the comments were not addressed.

[Ballot discuss]
The Gen-ART Review by Roni Even on 4-Dec-2010 included two comments,
  and the authors agreed that they needed to be addressed.  However,
  when a revised document was posted, the comments were not addressed.

[Ballot discuss]
Section 3.2, 2nd to last paragraph: Add a normative reference to BCP 106/RFC 4086 for randomness requirements (should have been in RFC 5222).

[RFC4086]  Eastlake, D., 3rd, Schiller, J., and S. Crocker,  "Randomness Requirements for Security", BCP 106, RFC 4086, June 2005.

Upon approval of this document, IANA understands that there are two IANA
Actions it must complete.

First, in the XML schema registry located at:

http://www.iana.org/assignments/xml-registry/schema.html

a new registration is to be added as follows:

ID: slb
URI: urn:ietf:params:xml:schema:lost1:slb
Filename:
Reference: [RFC-to-be]

Second, in the XML namespace registry located at:

http://www.iana.org/assignments/xml-registry/ns.html

a new registration is to be added as follows:

ID: slb
URI: urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:lost1:slb
Registration template:
Reference: [RFC-to-be]

IANA understands that these two actions are all that need to be
completed upon approval of this document.

State changed to In Last Call from Last Call Requested.

The following Last Call Announcement was sent out:

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC:
Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Last Call:  (LoST Service List Boundary Extension) to Experimental RFC


The IESG has received a request from the Emergency Context Resolution
with Internet Technologies WG (ecrit) to consider the following document:
- 'LoST Service List Boundary Extension'
  as an Experimental
RFC

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 2010-12-14. 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.

The file can be obtained via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ecrit-lost-servicelistboundary/

IESG discussion can be tracked via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ecrit-lost-servicelistboundary/

(1.a) Who is the Document Shepherd for this document? Has the
Document Shepherd personally reviewed this version of the
document and, in particular, does he or she believe this
version is ready for forwarding to the IESG for publication?

The Document Shepherd for this document is Richard Barnes. The
Shepherd has personally reviewed this version of the document, and
believes it is ready for publication.

(1.b) Has the document had adequate review both from key WG members
and from key non-WG members? Does the Document Shepherd have
any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that
have been performed?

This document has been the subject of thorough discussion within the
ECRIT working group. I have no concerns about the level of review
this document has received.

(1.c) Does the Document Shepherd have concerns that the document
needs more review from a particular or broader perspective,
e.g., security, operational complexity, someone familiar with
AAA, internationalization or XML?

I do not believe that this document requires any special review. It
does contain XML schemas, but has been reviewed by XML-DIR.

(1.d) Does the Document Shepherd have any specific concerns or
issues 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. Has an IPR disclosure related to this document
been filed? If so, please include a reference to the
disclosure and summarize the WG discussion and conclusion on
this issue.

I have no special concerns about this document. There have been no
IPR disclosures related to the document.

(1.e) 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?

There is consensus in the working group that this document is a useful
extension to the LoST protocol.

(1.f) 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
entered into the ID Tracker.)

I am not aware of any extreme discontent or potential appeals related
to this document.

(1.g) Has the Document Shepherd personally verified that the
document satisfies all ID nits? (See
http://www.ietf.org/ID-Checklist.html and
http://tools.ietf.org/tools/idnits/). Boilerplate checks are
not enough; this check needs to be thorough. Has the document
met all formal review criteria it needs to, such as the MIB
Doctor, media type and URI type reviews?

I have verified that the the document satisfies all ID nits. The
document does not contain MIBs or other content that requires special
review.

(1.h) Has the document split its references into normative and
informative? 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
strategy for their completion? Are there normative references
that are downward references, as described in [RFC3967]? If
so, list these downward references to support the Area
Director in the Last Call procedure for them [RFC3967].

References are split into normative and informative. All references
are RFCs, and there are no normative downrefs.

(1.i) Has the Document Shepherd verified that the document IANA
consideration section exists and is consistent with the body
of the document? If the document specifies protocol
extensions, are reservations requested in appropriate IANA
registries? Are the IANA registries clearly identified? If
the document creates a new registry, does it define the
proposed initial contents of the registry and an allocation
procedure for future registrations? Does it suggest a
reasonable name for the new registry? See [RFC5226]. If the
document describes an Expert Review process has Shepherd
conferred with the Responsible Area Director so that the IESG
can appoint the needed Expert during the IESG Evaluation?

The IANA considerations section exists, and provides clear
instructions for IANA to register a new XML schemas and namespaces.

(1.j) Has the Document Shepherd verified that sections of the
document that are written in a formal language, such as XML
code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc., validate correctly in
an automated checker?

The document contains two XML schemas and several example XML
documents. I have verified that these XML structures are well-formed
using an automated checker ().

(1.k) 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

LoST maps service identifiers and location information to service
contact URIs. If a LoST client wants to discover available services
for a particular location, it will perform a
query to the LoST server. However, the LoST server, in its response,
does not provide context information, that is, it does not provide any
additional information about the geographical region for which the
returned list of services is considered valid within. Therefore, this
document proposes a Service List Boundary that returns a local context
along with the list of services returned, in order to assist the
client to not miss a change in available services when moving.


Working Group Summary

There is consensus in the working group that this document adds useful
functionality to the LoST protocol.


Document Quality

The document has been reviewed by key participants from the ECRIT
working group and from the APP area XML-DIR.