|
»
« Return to Thread: PROTO write-up for draft-ietf-ecrit-lost-06.txt
PROTO write-up for draft-ietf-ecrit-mapping-arch-
by Hannes Tschofenig
::
Rate this Message:
PROTO WRITEUP for draft-ietf-ecrit-mapping-arch-02
==================================================
(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 Hannes Tschofenig (Hannes.Tschofenig@...).
The document is ready for publications 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 mapping architecture document describes how the
LoST protocol can be used to deploy a globally
distributed architecture for mapping location information
to URIs of Public Safety Answering Points (PSAPs).
This document has been subject to reviews together with the
LoST specification.
There are no concerns with the document.
The WGLC was posted on 16 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.
There are no concerns. No IPR has been disclosed with regard to
this 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 behind this document.
(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 normative and
informative references. There are no downward references.
(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 but is not needed since this
document does not require actions by IANA.
(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?
There are no such sections in the document.
(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-mapping-arch-02
Technical Summary
The Location-to-URL mapping architecture document describes an
architecture for a global, scalable, resilient and administratively
distributed system for mapping geographic location information to
URLs, using the Location-to-Service (LoST) protocol.
The architecture generalizes well-known approaches found in
hierarchical lookup systems such as DNS.
Working Group Summary
There is consensus in the WG to publish this document.
Document Quality
The LoST protocol has been implemented and the
interaction between LoST nodes, as described in this document,
has been tested.
Personnel
Hannes Tschofenig is the document shepherd for this document.
_______________________________________________
Ecrit mailing list
Ecrit@...
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ecrit
==================================================
(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 Hannes Tschofenig (Hannes.Tschofenig@...).
The document is ready for publications 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 mapping architecture document describes how the
LoST protocol can be used to deploy a globally
distributed architecture for mapping location information
to URIs of Public Safety Answering Points (PSAPs).
This document has been subject to reviews together with the
LoST specification.
There are no concerns with the document.
The WGLC was posted on 16 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.
There are no concerns. No IPR has been disclosed with regard to
this 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 behind this document.
(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 normative and
informative references. There are no downward references.
(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 but is not needed since this
document does not require actions by IANA.
(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?
There are no such sections in the document.
(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-mapping-arch-02
Technical Summary
The Location-to-URL mapping architecture document describes an
architecture for a global, scalable, resilient and administratively
distributed system for mapping geographic location information to
URLs, using the Location-to-Service (LoST) protocol.
The architecture generalizes well-known approaches found in
hierarchical lookup systems such as DNS.
Working Group Summary
There is consensus in the WG to publish this document.
Document Quality
The LoST protocol has been implemented and the
interaction between LoST nodes, as described in this document,
has been tested.
Personnel
Hannes Tschofenig is the document shepherd for this document.
_______________________________________________
Ecrit mailing list
Ecrit@...
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ecrit
« Return to Thread: PROTO write-up for draft-ietf-ecrit-lost-06.txt
| Free embeddable forum powered by Nabble | Forum Help |
