(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?
This draft is a proposed standard, because it normatively defines an interface
for exchanging logging information between two or more interconnected CDNs.
Yes, this is indicated on the page header.
(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 specifies the Logging interface between a downstream CDN (dCDN) and
an upstream CDN (uCDN) that are interconnected as per the CDN Interconnection
(CDNI) framework. First, it describes a reference model for CDNI logging.
Then, it specifies the CDNI Logging File format and the actual protocol for
exchange of CDNI Logging Files.
Working Group Summary:
We had a lot of discussion regarding the security of the logging files,
specifically as it relates to non-repudiation. Originally, the logging draft
had text regarding non-repudiation, but later we determined non-repudiation was
not as mature of a solution relative the rest of the logging draft and there
was other work regarding non-repudiation occurring in the IETF. We decided to
remove all references to non-repudiation for the following reasons: 1) Avoid
the potential of defining anything for non-repudiation within CDNi and creating
a conflict with other IETF work; 2) the requirement for non-repudiation was not
a critical requirement for the logging draft.
Recently, we had discussion and debate over which drafts should define the
advertisement of capabilities (I.e., what logging fields are required to be
supported). This was specifically related to the Footprint and Capabilities
Interface (FCI) draft
(https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-cdni-footprint-capabilities-semantics-04).
Ideally, capability advertisement would be defined with the interfaces
themselves, but the FCI draft is not as mature as this (and other drafts). As
a result of vigorous discussion, we decided to remove a placeholder for the FCI
advertisement information from the logging draft. In the future, the FCI draft
will define the template for FCI objects and a registry for FCI objects. We
will publish a separate RFC for capability advertisement for the logging
interface. We determined this approach as the best trade-off between draft
publish expediency and necessary functionality.
Document Quality:
Are there existing implementations of the protocol? Have a significant number
of vendors indicated their plan to implement the specification? Are there any
reviewers that merit special mention as having done a thorough review, e.g.,
one that resulted in important changes or a conclusion that the document had no
substantive issues? If there was a MIB Doctor, Media Type or other expert
review, what was its course (briefly)? In the case of a Media Type review, on
what date was the request posted?
CDNI interfaces are still mostly in prototypes with plans for production
support. Vendors, such as Cisco and Alcatel-Lucent, continue to progress the
development and testing of the CDNI solution space, including the logging draft.
Personnel:
Who is the Document Shepherd? Who is the Responsible Area Director?
Daryl Malas (co-chair of CDNI) is the document shepherd, and Spencer Dawkins 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.
I completed a full review of the draft prior to submission to the IESG.
(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of
the reviews that have been performed?
I have no concerns. We completed a WGLC, a 3rd party review and expert (Ops
Area – David Harrington) review of this draft.
(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.
Due to the Ops nature of this draft, we requested and received a thorough
review from an expert in this area, David Harrington. We discussed and
included necessary changes based on this review.
(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.
I have no concerns with this draft.
(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?
All authors confirmed there is no IPR to be disclosed on this draft.
(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?
We have solid consensus with no concerns.
(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.
Nits have been checked, and there are no “boilerplate” issues. We have a few
miscellaneous issues, which can be resolved during IESG review, if necessary.
(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?
N/A
(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.
N/A
(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).
I have reviewed the IANA considerations section to ensure it aligns with the
body of the work whereas new registry items are properly defined in prior
sections. Everything appears to be well defined, referenced and instructions
described for future allocations.
(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.
Expert reviews will need to take place for many of the CDNI documents, so a
Directorate or expert review committee should be established for all CDNI
drafts. To begin with, Francois Le Faucheur volunteered to be part of this
committee.
(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.
We requested a formal XML review, but we were unable to coordinate such a
review. In lieu of this request, we validated the code would parse correctly
in an XML editor. The result of this approach corrected an error in the XML
code example within the draft.