The LoST-Validation Straightforward-Naming Authority PoinTeR (S-NAPTR) Application Service Tag
RFC 8917

Received changes through RFC Editor sync (created alias RFC 8917, changed title to 'The LoST-Validation Straightforward-Naming Authority PoinTeR (S-NAPTR) Application Service Tag', changed abstract to 'This document adds the 'LoST-Validation' service tag to the Straightforward-Naming Authority PoinTeR (S-NAPTR) Application Service Tag IANA registry.  This tag can appear in a Naming Authority Pointer (NAPTR) Domain Name System (DNS) record to assist clients of the Location-to-Service Translation (LoST) Protocol in identifying LoST servers designated for location validation.  This tag and the information about its use update RFC 5222, which enables the explicit discovery of a server that supports location validation.', changed pages to 7, changed standardization level to Proposed Standard, changed state to RFC, added RFC published event at 2020-10-22, changed IESG state to RFC Published, created updates relation between draft-gellens-lost-validation and RFC 5222)

[Ballot comment]
I echo Roman's comments (and sentiment regarding the history/origin of the protocol).

Additionally, since in some sense we are defining a new protocol with the
LoST-Validation service tag, we should consider whether or not it is
desirable and/or appropriate to require the use of HTTPS, prohibiting
unencrypted+unauthenticated HTTP.  For LoST mapping, used in emergency
call services, it seems fairly natural to prefer availability over
authentication and allow unencrypted HTTP.  Since LoST validation is
"typically performed in advance", though, it is less clear to me that there are
clear reasons to allow unencrypted HTTP in that usage.

[Ballot comment]
This draft is a limited scope update to RFC5222.  As such, I am balloting this feedback as a COMMENT since I appreciate that the base document (RFC5222) (and associated security considerations section) was written in a different era.

** RFC5222 noted that “The use of server identity does leave open the possibility of DNS- based attacks, as the NAPTR records may be altered by an attacker.  The attacks include, for example, interception of DNS packets between the client and the recursive name server, DNS cache poisoning, and    intentional modifications by the recursive name server; …  particularly when they are requesting NAPTR records in environments where the local recursive name server, or the network between the client and the local recursive name server, is not considered trustworthy.”  We now have mitigations for some of these threats by using encrypted DNS (i.e., DNS over TLS or DoH).  Please provide a reference to them and consider whether it is appropriate to providing some level of normative language prescribing their use.

** RFC5222 also noted that “An attacker that can eavesdrop on the communication requesting this lookup can surmise the existence of an emergency and possibly its nature, and may be able to use this to launch a physical attack on the caller”.  This language is the closest text I could find when skimming for privacy considerations/pervasive monitoring issues.  It seems like this topic should have explicit treatment.

[Ballot comment]
I am balloting this feedback as a COMMENT since this draft is updating a specification (RFC5222) written in a different era.

** RFC5222 noted that “The use of server identity does leave open the possibility of DNS- based attacks, as the NAPTR records may be altered by an attacker.  The attacks include, for example, interception of DNS packets between the client and the recursive name server, DNS cache poisoning, and    intentional modifications by the recursive name server; …  particularly when they are requesting NAPTR records in environments where the local recursive name server, or the network between the client and the local recursive name server, is not considered trustworthy.”  We now have mitigations for some of these threats by using encrypted DNS (i.e., DNS over TLS or DoH).  Please provide a reference to them and consider whether it is appropriate to providing some level of normative language prescribing their use.

** RFC5222 also noted that “An attacker that can eavesdrop on the communication requesting this lookup can surmise the existence of an emergency and possibly its nature, and may be able to use this to launch a physical attack on the caller”.  This language is the closest text I could find when skimming for privacy considerations/pervasive monitoring issues.  It seems like this topic should have explicit treatment.

[Ballot comment]
Hi,

Thanks for this document, with no domain specific knowledge I was able to easily understand the problem being solved and the solution.

My only observation is that I found section 3 perhaps a little bit repetitive.  In particular I noted:

3.  The LoST-Validation Application Service Tag

                                      In order to permit separability
  of the mapping and validation services performed using LoST, and to
  reduce the likelihood of a client requiring location validation
  reaching servers unwilling to do so, this document defines the 'LoST-
  Validation' service tag.
 
This sentence seems to somewhat repeat what is stated in the first paragraph of section 3, so I wasn't sure whether it was required.

                                                The discovery procedure
  with the 'LoST-Validation' service tag might result in the same URL
  as the 'LoST' service tag, or it may result in a different URL.  When
  the URLs are different, they could lead to the same physical servers,
  or different servers.
 
Similarly, this sentence seems to somewhat overlap with the text in the second paragraph of section 3, and the content could potentially be incorporated into the second paragraph.

Regards,
Rob

[Ballot comment]
Hi,

Thanks for this document, with no domain specific knowledge was able to easily understand the problem being solved and the solution.

My only observation is that I found section 3 perhaps a little bit repetitive.  In particular I noted:

3.  The LoST-Validation Application Service Tag

                                      In order to permit separability
  of the mapping and validation services performed using LoST, and to
  reduce the likelihood of a client requiring location validation
  reaching servers unwilling to do so, this document defines the 'LoST-
  Validation' service tag.
 
This sentence seems to somewhat repeat what is stated in the first paragraph of section 3, so I wasn't sure whether it was required.

                                                The discovery procedure
  with the 'LoST-Validation' service tag might result in the same URL
  as the 'LoST' service tag, or it may result in a different URL.  When
  the URLs are different, they could lead to the same physical servers,
  or different servers.
 
Similarly, this sentence seems to somewhat overlap with the text in the second paragraph of section 3, and the content could potentially be incorporated into the second paragraph.

Regards,
Rob

(Via drafts-lastcall@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

The IANA Functions Operator has completed its review of draft-gellens-lost-validation-08. If any part of this review is inaccurate, please let us know.

The IANA Functions Operator understands that, upon approval of this document, there is a single action which we must complete.

In the S-NAPTR Application Service Tags registry on the Straightforward-NAPTR (S-NAPTR) Parameters registry page located at:

https://www.iana.org/assignments/s-naptr-parameters/

a single, new registration will be made as follows:

Tag: LoST-Validation
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

As this document requests registrations in a Specification Required (see RFC 8126) registry, we will initiate the required Expert Review via a separate request. This review must be completed before the document's IANA state can be changed to "IANA OK."

The IANA Functions Operator understands that this is the only action 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 meant only to confirm the list of actions that will be performed.

Thank you,

Sabrina Tanamal
Senior IANA Services Specialist

The following Last Call announcement was sent out (ends 2020-06-18):

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC: Ben Campbell , draft-gellens-lost-validation@ietf.org, ben@nostrum.com, barryleiba@gmail.com
Reply-To: last-call@ietf.org
Sender:
Subject: Last Call:  (The LoST-Validation S-NAPTR Application Service Tag) to Proposed Standard


The IESG has received a request from an individual submitter to consider the
following document: - 'The LoST-Validation S-NAPTR Application Service Tag'
  as Proposed Standard

This document has been through last call in March 2020, as Informational.
Comments from that last call resulted in rethinking the appropriate status.
This is a second last call, seeking community consensus on the new status
of Proposed Standard, with an explicit update to RFC 5222 included.

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
last-call@ietf.org mailing lists by 2020-06-18. 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

  This document adds the "LoST-Validation" service tag to the
  Straightforward Naming Authority PoinTeR (S-NAPTR) Application
  Service Tag IANA registry.  This tag can appear in a Naming Authority
  Pointer (NAPTR) Domain Name System (DNS) record to assist clients of
  the Location-to-Service Translation Protocol (LoST) in identifying
  LoST servers explicitly willing to perform location validation.  This
  tag and the information on its use is an update to RFC5222 that
  enables the explicit discovery of a server that supports location
  validation.


The file can be obtained via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-gellens-lost-validation/


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

(Via drafts-lastcall@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

The IANA Functions Operator has completed its review of draft-gellens-lost-validation-05. If any part of this review is inaccurate, please let us know.

The IANA Functions Operator understands that, upon approval of this document, there is a single action which we must complete.

In the S-NAPTR Application Service Tags on the Straightforward-NAPTR (S-NAPTR) Parameters registry page located at:

https://www.iana.org/assignments/s-naptr-parameters/

a new registration will be made as follows:

Tag: LoST-Validation
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

We have confirmation from the designated expert for the S-NAPTR Application Service Tags that this registration can be made once the IESG approves the document for publication.

The IANA Functions Operator understands that this is the only action 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 meant only to confirm the list of actions that will be performed.

Thank you,

Sabrina Tanamal
Senior IANA Services Specialist

This version is dated 1 November 2019.

(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 authors request publication as an Informational RFC. The draft registers a new U-NAPTR application service tag. The registration policy for that registry requires an RFC of any type.

(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 adds the LoST-Validation service tag to the S-NAPTR Application Service Tag IANA registry.  This tag is used by clients
  of the Location-to-Service Translation Protocol (LoST). The use of this tag for service discovery allows the separation of a  LoST location
  validation service from the LoST mapping/routing service, as contemplated by the NENA i3 architecture.

Working Group Summary

  This document has not been discussed in a working group. It has had some brief discussion on the ART area mailing list.
  LoST (RFC 5222) was originally specified by the ECRIT working group. (Update: The authors posted the draft to the ECRIT mailing
  list on 21 February, 2020. Additionally, the IETF LC was cross-posted to ECRIT and ART).

Document Quality

Are there existing implementations of the protocol? Have a significant number of vendors indicated their plan to implement the specification? Are there any reviewers that merit special mention as having done a thorough review, e.g., one that resulted in important changes or a conclusion that the document had no substantive issues? If there was a MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, Media Type or other expert review, what was its course (briefly)? In the case of a Media Type review, on what date was the request posted?

The service tag is expected to be used by LoST products designed to be used with the NENA i3 architecture. The service tag registration was reviewed on the ART area mailing
list. That review resulted in editorial comments from Ted Hardie.

Personnel

Who is the Document Shepherd? Who is the Responsible Area Director?

  The shepherd is Ben Campbell. The responsible AD is Barry Leiba.

(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 has checked nits, reviewed the document in detail, checked registration policies for the affected registry, as well as refreshed his memory on LoST (RFC 5222).
He made editorial comments that have been addressed.  Since this draft is expected to be AD sponsored, the shepherd leaves the readiness-for-publication decision to the sponsoring AD.

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

The shepherd would have liked to see review in the the ECRIT working group, since this document is related to RFC 5222, which was a product of ECRIT.
However, the shepherd recognizes that ECRIT may not have sufficient participation at this time to perform an in-depth review, and that this is a
fairly simple service tag registration. (Update: The draft was posted to the ECRIT list on 21 February).

(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.

Please see the answer to question number 4. Otherwise, the document received review on the ART list in the context of registration of a DNS S-NAPTR application service tag.
The shepherd does not believe the document needs review from other perspectives.

(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 interested community has discussed those issues and has indicated that it still wishes to advance the document, detail those concerns here.

The shepherd recommends that the ART ADs consider whether the LoST service split enabled by this this registration and contemplated by the NENA i3 architecture needs additional specification (perhaps in another document) or creates backwards-compatibility issues with RFC 5222 based LoST clients. (Update: Version 5 adds a section on
backwards compatibility.)

(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

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

There are no current disclosures.

(9) How solid is the consensus of the interested community behind this document? Does it represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others being silent, or does the interested community as a whole understand and agree with it?

The consensus would best be characterized as from a small group of individuals, with others being silent. However, this is a short IANA registration document. It concerns emergency calling services, which has only a small community of experts in the IETF (a substantial fraction of which are authors). The shepherd would have been
surprised to see wide-spread participation.

(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.

(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.

IDNits gives the draft a clean bill of health.

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

The shepherd is not aware of any formal review requirements that would apply to this draft beyond the normal IETF consensus process.

(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 interested community considers it unnecessary.

The draft does not currently change the status of any existing RFC.

(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).

The shepherd reviewed the IANA considerations against the body of the draft and the registration policy of the affected registry. The affected registry is clearly identified.
There are no newly created registries.

(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.

There are no newly created registries.

(19) Describe reviews and automated checks performed by to validate sections of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, YANG modules, etc.

The draft does not use formal languages.

(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?

The draft does not contain a YANG module.

The following Last Call announcement was sent out (ends 2020-03-31):

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC: draft-gellens-lost-validation@ietf.org, Ben Campbell , barryleiba@gmail.com, ben@nostrum.com
Reply-To: last-call@ietf.org
Sender:
Subject: Last Call:  (The LoST-Validation S-NAPTR Application Service Tag) to Informational RFC


The IESG has received a request from an individual submitter to consider the
following document: - 'The LoST-Validation S-NAPTR Application Service Tag'
  as Informational 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
last-call@ietf.org mailing lists by 2020-03-31. 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


  This document adds the LoST-Validation service tag to the S-NAPTR
  Application Service Tag IANA registry.  This tag is used by clients
  of the Location-to-Service Translation Protocol (LoST).




The file can be obtained via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-gellens-lost-validation/

IESG discussion can be tracked via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-gellens-lost-validation/ballot/


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

[Note: This is a preliminary writeup, subject to an ongoing discussion]

This version is dated 1 November 2019.

(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 authors request publication as an Informational RFC. The draft registers a new U-NAPTR application service tag. The registration policy for that registry requires an RFC of any type.

(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 adds the LoST-Validation service tag to the S-NAPTR Application Service Tag IANA registry.  This tag is used by clients
  of the Location-to-Service Translation Protocol (LoST). The use of this tag for service discovery allows the separation of a  LoST location
  validation service from the LoST mapping/routing service, as contemplated by the NENA i3 architecture.

Working Group Summary

  This document has not been discussed in a working group. It has had some brief discussion on the ART area mailing list.
  LoST (RFC 5222) was originally specified by the ECRIT working group.

Document Quality

Are there existing implementations of the protocol? Have a significant number of vendors indicated their plan to implement the specification? Are there any reviewers that merit special mention as having done a thorough review, e.g., one that resulted in important changes or a conclusion that the document had no substantive issues? If there was a MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, Media Type or other expert review, what was its course (briefly)? In the case of a Media Type review, on what date was the request posted?

The service tag is expected to be used by LoST products designed to be used with the NENA i3 architecture. The service tag registration was reviewed on the ART area mailing
list. That review only resulted in editorial comments from Ted Hardie.

Personnel

Who is the Document Shepherd? Who 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 shepherd has checked nits, reviewed the document in detail, checked registration policies for the affected registry, as well as refreshed his memory on LoST (RFC 5222).
He made editorial comments that have been addressed.  Since this draft is expected to be AD sponsored, the shepherd leaves the readiness-for-publication decision to the sponsoring AD.

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

The shepherd would have liked to see review in the the ECRIT working group, since this document is related to RFC 5222, which was a product of ECRIT.
However, the shepherd recognizes that ECRIT may not have sufficient participation at this time to perform an in-depth review, and that this is a
fairly simple service tag registration.

(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.

Please see the answer to question number 4. Otherwise, the document received review on the ART list in the context of registration of a DNS S-NAPTR application service tag.
The shepherd does not believe the document needs review from other perspectives.

(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 interested community has discussed those issues and has indicated that it still wishes to advance the document, detail those concerns here.

The shepherd recommends that the ART ADs consider whether the LoST service split enabled by this this registration and contemplated by the NENA i3 architecture needs additional specification (perhaps in another document) or creates backwards-compatibility issues with RFC 5222 based LoST clients.

(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

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

There are no current disclosures.

(9) How solid is the consensus of the interested community behind this document? Does it represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others being silent, or does the interested community as a whole understand and agree with it?

The consensus would best be characterized as from a small group of individuals, with others being silent. However, this is a short IANA registration document. It concerns emergency calling services, which has only a small community of experts in the IETF (a substantial fraction of which are authors). The shepherd would have been
surprised to see wide-spread participation.

(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.

(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.

IDNits gives the draft a clean bill of health.

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

The shepherd is not aware of any formal review requirements that would apply to this draft beyond the normal IETF consensus process.

(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 interested community considers it unnecessary.

The draft does not currently change the status of any existing RFC.

(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).

The shepherd reviews the IANA considerations against the body of the draft and the registration policy of the affected registry. The affected registry is clearly identified.
There are no newly created registries.

(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.

There are no newly created registries.

(19) Describe reviews and automated checks performed by to validate sections of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, YANG modules, etc.

The draft does not use formal language.

(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?

The draft does not contain a YANG module.

This version is dated 1 November 2019.

(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 authors request publication as an Informational RFC. The draft registers a new U-NAPTR application service tag. The registration policy for that registry requires an RFC of any type.

(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 adds the LoST-Validation service tag to the S-NAPTR Application Service Tag IANA registry.  This tag is used by clients
  of the Location-to-Service Translation Protocol (LoST). The use of this tag for service discovery allows the separation of a  LoST location
  validation service from the LoST mapping/routing service, as contemplated by the NENA i3 architecture.

Working Group Summary

  This document has not been discussed in a working group. It has had some brief discussion on the ART area mailing list.
  LoST (RFC 5222) was originally specified by the ECRIT working group.

Document Quality

Are there existing implementations of the protocol? Have a significant number of vendors indicated their plan to implement the specification? Are there any reviewers that merit special mention as having done a thorough review, e.g., one that resulted in important changes or a conclusion that the document had no substantive issues? If there was a MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, Media Type or other expert review, what was its course (briefly)? In the case of a Media Type review, on what date was the request posted?

The service tag is expected to be used by LoST products designed to be used with the NENA i3 architecture. The service tag registration was reviewed on the ART area mailing
list. That review only resulted in editorial comments from Ted Hardie.

Personnel

Who is the Document Shepherd? Who 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 shepherd has checked nits, reviewed the document in detail, checked registration policies for the affected registry, as well as refreshed his memory on LoST (RFC 5222).
He made editorial comments that have been addressed.  Since this draft is expected to be AD sponsored, the shepherd leaves the readiness-for-publication decision to the sponsoring AD.

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

The shepherd would have liked to see review in the the ECRIT working group, since this document is related to RFC 5222, which was a product of ECRIT.
However, the shepherd recognizes that ECRIT may not have sufficient participation at this time to perform an in-depth review, and that this is a
fairly simple service tag registration.

(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.

Please see the answer to question number 4. Otherwise, the document received review on the ART list in the context of registration of a DNS S-NAPTR application service tag.
The shepherd does not believe the document needs review from other perspectives.

(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 interested community has discussed those issues and has indicated that it still wishes to advance the document, detail those concerns here.

The shepherd recommends that the ART ADs consider whether the LoST service split enabled by this this registration and contemplated by the NENA i3 architecture needs additional specification (perhaps in another document) or creates backwards-compatibility issues with RFC 5222 based LoST clients.

(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

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

There are no current disclosures.

(9) How solid is the consensus of the interested community behind this document? Does it represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others being silent, or does the interested community as a whole understand and agree with it?

The consensus would best be characterized as from a small group of individuals, with others being silent. However, this is a short IANA registration document. It concerns emergency calling services, which has only a small community of experts in the IETF (a substantial fraction of which are authors). The shepherd would have been
surprised to see wide-spread participation.

(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.

(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.

IDNits gives the draft a clean bill of health.

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

The shepherd is not aware of any formal review requirements that would apply to this draft beyond the normal IETF consensus process.

(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 interested community considers it unnecessary.

The draft does not currently change the status of any existing RFC.

(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).

The shepherd reviews the IANA considerations against the body of the draft and the registration policy of the affected registry. The affected registry is clearly identified.
There are no newly created registries.

(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.

There are no newly created registries.

(19) Describe reviews and automated checks performed by to validate sections of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, YANG modules, etc.

The draft does not use formal language.

(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?

The draft does not contain a YANG module.