|
»
PROTO write-up for draft-ietf-ecrit-lost-06.txt
|
View:
New views
2 Messages
—
Rating Filter:
Alert me
|
 |
PROTO write-up for draft-ietf-ecrit-lost-06.txt
by Marc Linsner
::
Rate this Message:
PROTO WRITEUP for draft-ietf-ecrit-lost-06.txt
============================================== (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? Document Shepherd is Marc Linsner (marc.linsner@...). The document is ready for publication and I have reviewed the document personally. (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? The LoST specification has experienced extensive review, including reviews by other SDOs. The work has been presented to other organizations working in the area of emergency services at different meetings, including two emergency services workshops (see http://www.emergency-services-coordination.info/) and other smaller information sharing events with the 3GPP and the IEEE. The protocol is also an important building block in the NENA i3 architecture and reviews have been provided by NENA members. Two WGLCs were issued, on 14 February 2007 and on 15 August 2007. (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? There are no concerns with the document. (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. A few working group members raised issues with the usage of the Relax NG schema (instead of an XML schema). Tool support for XML schemas is better than with Relax NG. Two IPR claims have recently been announced. Active participants in the working group are authors of patent filings, but not the authors of this document. One WG participant raised the following concern, "the timing of the disclosure doesn't appear to meet the spirit of Section 6.2 of RFC 3979, possibly opening us up to the ramifications of Section 7 (whatever those may be)." (see: http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ecrit/current/msg04191.html) (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 solid consensus behind this document. Section 19 extensively lists the reviewers. (1.f) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If so, please summarize 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.) No. (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? If the document does not already indicate its intended status at the top of the first page, please indicate the intended status here. The document does not contain nits. (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]. The document has references split into a normative and informative references. There are no downrefs. There are, however, references to documents that were published outside the IETF, namely reference [11] and [12]. These documents refer to XML-based location formats developed by the OGC. A few other dependencies to unfinished documents exist: * draft-ietf-ecrit-service-urn-06: This document is in 'Approved-announcement to be sent' state. * draft-ietf-geopriv-revised-civic-lo-05: This document is in 'Publication Requested' state. (1.i) Has the Document Shepherd verified that the document's IANA Considerations 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 [RFC2434]. If the document describes an Expert Review process, has the Document Shepherd conferred with the Responsible Area Director so that the IESG can appoint the needed Expert during IESG Evaluation? An IANA consideration section exists and is consistent with the rest of the document. The document was sent to the URI review team in February 2007. (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? Yes. The schema and the instance document have been validated. (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. Document Announcement Write-Up for draft-ietf-ecrit-lost-06.txt Technical Summary This document describes an XML-based protocol for mapping service identifiers and geodetic or civic location information to service contact URIs. In particular, it can be used to determine the location-appropriate PSAP for emergency services. Working Group Summary There is consensus in the WG to publish this document. Document Quality The LoST protocol has been implemented during the development of the specification. Two public implementations are available and other company-internal implementations have been reported to the chairs. Tests have been performed between two public implementations and useful feedback was provided to the working group. The LoST specification has experienced extensive review, including reviews by other SDOs. The protocol is an important building block in the NENA i3 architecture. Two WGLCs were issued, on 14 February 2007 and on 15 August 2007. Personnel Marc Linsner is the document shepherd for this document. The document was sent to the URI review team in February 2007. _______________________________________________ Ecrit mailing list Ecrit@... https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ecrit |
|
|
PROTO write-up for draft-ietf-ecrit-mapping-arch- |
| Free embeddable forum powered by Nabble | Forum Help |
