Shepherd Write-Up for: draft-ietf-clue-telepresence-requirements-06
(1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard,
Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)?
Informational
Why is this the proper type of RFC?
This is just an internal working document for the workgroup,
as a step toward normative documents. It does use 2119 language,
but only in the context of developing the ultimate documents.
Is this type of RFC indicated in the title page header?
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 document identifies requirements for a future
specification(s) that, when fulfilled by an implementation of the
specification(s), provide for interoperability between IETF protocol
based telepresence systems. It is anticipated that a solution for
the requirements set out in this memo likely involves the exchange of
adequate information about participating sites; information that is
currently not standardized by the IETF.
Working Group Summary
Was there anything in WG process that is worth noting? For
example, was there controversy about particular points or
were there decisions where the consensus was particularly
rough?
There was nothing of particular note. Just the usual give
and take. This document has been in progress for a long
time (since August 2011), but that is just a reflection
of WG style. We have kept the document open and tweaked
it while working on the other documents.
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?
Since this is just a precursor to other documents for the WG,
there are not , and will not be, multiple implementations.
(The other documents in progress in the WG constitute the
one intended "implementation" of these requirements.
Personnel
Who is the Document Shepherd? Paul Kyzivat
Who is the Responsible Area Director? Gonzalo Camarillo
(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 have followed the evolution of this document from the beginning.
I oversaw the WGLC. And I have done a final read-through of the document.
I am now confident that this document is stable.
(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?
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.
N/A
(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?
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?
Strong and broad consensus.
(10) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme
discontent?
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 reports no errors or issues.
(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. Because this is an informational document all references are informational.
(14) Are there normative references to documents that are not ready for
advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state?
No.
(15) Are there downward normative references references (see RFC 3967)?
No.
(16) Will publication of this document change the status of any
existing RFCs?
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).
There are no IANA considerations, and this is appropriate for this 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.
N/A
(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.
N/A