Document Writeup for draft-fairhurst-ipdvb-ule-iana-05
Wes Eddy (wes@mti-systems.com)
(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 intended status is marked as Standards Track / Proposed Standard.
This is appropriate as it updates RFC 4326 and modifies the ULE Next-Header
registry.
(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
(from the document abstract)
This document proposes an update to RFC 4326 to clarify and update
the allocation rules for the Unidirectional Lightweight Encapsulation
(ULE) next header registry. This registry is used by ULE and Generic
Stream Encapsulation (GSE) to record the codepoints of extension
headers and protocols supported by these encapsulation protocols.
Working Group Summary
The IPDVB working group has been closed for awhile. This document
updates a registry that was created to support the ULE protocol that
came out of that working group. While the working group is closed,
the editor has worked with others that were active in the group to
solicit reviews, and has been engaged with the other SDO participants
that use this.
The first version of the draft was posted to the TM-GBS reflector
(used by the DVB Consortium in working on the DVB specifications),
and it received feedback from the chair and Hans-Peter Lexow.
Document Quality
There is not a new protocol described in this document. The text
describing the registry changes is very clear and unambiguous. The
document quality is good.
Personnel
Document Shepherd: Wes Eddy (wes@mti-systems.com)
Area Director: Brian Haberman (brian@innovationslab.net)
(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 the draft, and provided comments and
questions to the editor. After a revision was made including some
minor clarifications and corrections, the document appears to be totally
sufficient for its purpose.
(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or
breadth of the reviews that have been performed?
None
(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.
Two reviews by others knowledgeable in the area were solicited (from
Thomas Narten and Margaret Wasserman). The need to write a document
to make the changes was identified through the editor's interaction
with IANA and the responsible AD. Through the TM-GBS reflector, the
draft was also reviewed by relevant DVB experts.
(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.
None.
(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 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?
It appears to have consensus among the relevant community of people
advancing IP over DVB.
(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.)
(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.
IDNits only copmlains about the clarity of the abstract in updating
RFC 4326, which is clear to a human reader.
(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review
criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.
N/A
(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.
It updates RFC 4326, which is clearly listed in the header and described
in the abstract and introduction. The relationship is clear.
(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 main purpose of this document is revising IANA considerations from
RFC 4326, and the topic is well covered in this document, with all
changes explained in detail.
(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 registries are created, but the rules for one are updated.
(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.
N/A