Experiences from Cross-Area Work at the IETF
draft-arkko-iesg-crossarea-03

IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

IANA has reviewed draft-arkko-iesg-crossarea, which is currently in Last Call, and has the following comments:

We understand that

We note that this document does not contain a standard IANA Considerations section.  After examining the draft, we understand that, upon approval of
this document, there are no IANA Actions that need completion.

If this assessment is not accurate, please respond as soon as possible.

The following Last Call announcement was sent out:

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Last Call:  (Experiences from Cross-Area Work at the IETF) to Informational RFC


The IESG has received a request from an individual submitter to consider
the following document:
- 'Experiences from Cross-Area Work at the IETF'
  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
ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2013-03-06. 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 memo discusses the reasons for IETF work on topics that cross
  area boundaries.  Such cross-area work presents challenges for the
  organization of the IETF as well as on how interested parties can
  participate the work.  The memo also provides some suggestions on
  managing these challenges.




The file can be obtained via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-arkko-iesg-crossarea/

IESG discussion can be tracked via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-arkko-iesg-crossarea/ballot/


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

Document Writeup

As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document
Shepherd Write-Up.

Changes are expected over time. This version is dated 24 February 2012.

(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?

Informational. Yes.


(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 memo discusses the reasons for IETF work on topics that cross
  area boundaries.  Such cross-area work presents challenges for the
  organization of the IETF as well as on how interested parties can
  participate the work.  The memo also provides some suggestions on
  managing these challenges.

Working Group Summary

There is no relevant working group that would match the topic of the document.


Document Quality

The document has been discussed in the IESG, with various various ADs, and on working group chair's mailing list.

Personnel

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

There is no document shepherd. The responsible AD is Russ Housley.

(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.

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

(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.

(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.

For items (3)-(6) there is no shepherd, but the author believes that the topic has been discussed enough that document could be turned into an RFC. Additional review during last call from IETF leadership, such as WG chairs and ADs would be helpful.


(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.

I confirm.

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

No.

(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?

There have been no major disagreements among the people who have reviewed the document. However, additional review would be useful.

(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.

The IDNITS tool indicates that the document's year is different from the current year (due to latest update being in 2012). There are no IANA or security considerations sections, but perhaps in this case they are truly unnecessary, and adding them would only serve following a guideline to the letter; there are no security issues beyond those discussed in the body of the document and relating to interactions between the SEC area of the IETF and other areas.

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

Not applicable.


(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.

Not applicable.

(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).

There are no IANA impacts.

(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.

Not applicable.

(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, etc.

Not applicable.