Shepherd writeup

(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 type of RFC being requested according to the page header is informational. This is the proper type of RFC as this is a special usage for application by 3GPP and is not applicable to the internet in its entirety as is the very similar specification of the use of the IMEI as an instance ID in RFC 7255 upon which this draft is based.

(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
The document defines how the URN namespace reserved for Third Generation Partnership Project 2 (3GPP2) identities and the NSS under that namespace for the Mobile Equipment Identity (MEID) can be used as a SIP instance-id and fulfils the requirements of RFC 5626 requiring an RFC to be published to define how a URN is used as a SIP instance-id.

Working Group Summary
The document was submitted to DISPATCH WG, However after some initial list discussion it was determined that since this was material of interest only to 3GPP/3GPP2 specifications that this should be progressed as an individual draft. There was no controversy during the WG discussion.

Document Quality
It is not known if there are existing implementations of draft-atarius-dispatch-meid-urn-as-instanceid. However the draft is specified for use by 3GPP2 mobile devices when using IP Multimedia Subsystem  (IMS) networks when the mobile device only has a MEID. Currently IMS networks are in the early stages of deployment and most of these are based on the 3GPP LTE or UMTS (Universal Mobile Telecommunications System) access and use the IMEI (International Mobile Equipment Identity) for device identification. However, there are many telecommunications carriers that have deployed 3GPP2 CDMA based access networks and these carriers may well deploy IMS networks and devices that only support the 3GPP2 MEID. Handset vendors supporting these CDMA carriers are expected to support this specification for such network deployments.  I have conducted detailed reviews of the technical content of the document that resulted in comments that lead to improvements.

Andrew Allen is the Document Shepherd.
Ben Campbell 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 Document Shepherd has performed a full review of the document. The Document Shepherd has communicated the issues found to the author who has addressed all the concerns in the latest (version 02) of the draft. In the opinion of the Document Shepherd the document is now ready for publication.

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

The Document Shepherd does not 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.

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 the author has confirmed that there is no IPR known to the author and also his affiliation conducted a search for relevant IPR and non was found. The draft is thus in full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79

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

No IPR disclosures have been filed on this document

(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? 

This document is of primary interest to the members of the community that is active in 3GPP and 3GPP2 where this URN will be utilized. There has been no opposition raised in the community to this document.

(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 appeal or discontent has been indicated.

(11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this document. (See and the Internet-Drafts Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be thorough.

IDNITS was run with very verbose output selected. Only warning messages were related to the references needing updating (e.g. RFC 5626 [3]) and identifying where RFC 2119 keywords are used. Below is the summary output from IDNITS:

  Checking boilerplate required by RFC 5378 and the IETF Trust (see

     No issues found here.

  Checking nits according to

     No issues found here.

  Checking nits according to :

     No issues found here.

  Miscellaneous warnings:

  -- The document date (August 24, 2015) is 8 days in the past.  Is this

  Checking references for intended status: Informational

  ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 4346 (ref. '6') (Obsoleted by RFC 5246)

     Summary: 1 error (**), 0 flaws (~~), 0 warnings (==), 1 comment (--).


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

No formal review is required.

(13) Have all references within this document been identified as either normative or informative?


(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?

Only normative reference that is not an RFC is draft-atarius-dispatch-meid-urn. Both of these drafts should be advanced together as part of the same stream.

(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. 


(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.


(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).


(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.

No new IANA registries are defined.

(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.

No automated checks were necessary except the IDNITS