PROTO Writeup for draft-ietf-hip-reload-instance-08
June 19th, 2013, by Miika Komu
(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?
Experimental, as indicated by the draft's boilterplate. The HIP WG was
originally chartered to produce experimental RFCs, and this is one of
them. Afterwards, the HIP WG was chartered to move some of the
Experimental RFCs it produced to PS but this draft predates that
effort and, thus, should be published as Experimental.
(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 is the Host Identity Protocol-Based Overlay Networking
Environment (HIP BONE) instance specification for the REsource
LOcation And Discovery (RELOAD) protocol. The document provides the
details needed to build a RELOAD-based overlay that uses HIP.
Working Group Summary:
There is WG consensus behind this draft. The WG actively worked on
this draft at the same time as RELOAD was being developed (this draft
was also discussed in the P2PSIP WG, where RELOAD was developed, so
that RELOAD had enough hooks to be able to run with HIP). This draft
was put on hold when the RELOAD specification got stuck (for a long
time) during its IESG review. Now that RELOAD has been published, this
spec can be published as well (RELOAD is, obviously, an essential
dependency for this draft).
Document Quality:
There is at least one implementation of this draft. The delay in the
publication of RELOAD has a negative impact in the number of people
implementing RELOAD-related specs. Nevertheless, now that RELOAD has
been published, the interest seems to be growing again.
Personnel:
Who is the Document Shepherd? Who is the Responsible Area Director?
Miika Komu is the document shepherd.
Ted Lemon is the responsible AD.
(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 reviewed version 08 of the draft as well as a
number of previous versions. This version is ready to be sent to the
IESG (after the mandatory IETF LC).
(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or
breadth of the reviews that have been performed?
No.
(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.
No 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.
(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If
so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR
disclosures.
No.
(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?
There is a strong WG consensus behind this document among all the WG's
active participants.
(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.
Running idnits 2.12.17 on version 08 of the draft results in no errors
or warnings.
(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review
criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.
No such formal reviews are needed.
(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?
The only normative reference to a draft (the rest of the references
are to RFCs) is the RELOAD spec, which is already in AUTH48 at the
time of writing.
(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.
No.
(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).
The IANA Considerations Section is consistent with the rest of the
document.
(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.
None.
(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 such checks were required.