Shepherd writeup
draft-ietf-core-dev-urn-07

### Summary

Document Shepherd: Marco Tiloca <marco.tiloca@ri.se>
Area Director: Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org>

The document defines a Uniform Resource Name (URN) namespace, to express device URN-based identifiers for HW devices. Relevant target applications are sensor data streams and storage, smart object systems, and equipment inventories. The device URN is recommended especially for constrained environments.

On top of the "DEV" URN identifier type and its hierarchically structured syntax, the document defines a number of subtypes, as affecting the exact identifier assignment. Defined subtypes support device URNs that reflect: built-in EUI-64, MAC-48 and EUI-48 MAC addresses; 1-Wire proprietary identifiers; organization-specific identifiers, possibly including product class and serial number.

Examples of device URNs are provided, for the different subtypes.

DEV URNs are expected to be a part of the IETF-provided basic URN types. Supported effort was put on aligning identifier subtypes to OMA LWM2M.

The document is intended for Standards Track.

Note: the initial publication request indicated the document as intended to be Informational. The change was agreed with the responsible Area Director, to give the document proper standing for reference by other organizations.

### Review and Consensus

The document has been discussed on multiple IETF meetings, and has gone through multiple expert reviews. Consensus has been reached on the content of this document and its need.

### Intellectual Property

Each author has stated that they do not have direct, personal knowledge of any IPR related to this document. I am not aware of any IPR discussion about this document on the CoRE WG.

### Other Points

The document registers a new URN namespace for "DEV", and provides detailed reasoning concerning the possible addition of more subtypes for DEV URNs in the future.

### Checklist

- [x] Does the shepherd stand behind the document and think the document is ready for publication?
- [x] Is the correct RFC type indicated in the title page header?
- [x] Is the abstract both brief and sufficient, and does it stand alone as a brief summary?
- [x] Is the intent of the document accurately and adequately explained in the introduction?
- [x] Have all required formal reviews (MIB Doctor, Media Type, URI, etc.) been requested and/or completed?
- [x] Has the shepherd performed automated checks -- idnits (see http://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts Checklist), checks of BNF rules, XML code and schemas, MIB definitions, and so on -- and determined that the document passes the tests?
- [x] Has each author stated that their direct, personal knowledge of any IPR related to this document has already been disclosed, in conformance with BCPs 78 and 79?
- [x] Have all references within this document been identified as either normative or informative, and does the shepherd agree with how they have been classified?
- [x] Are all normative references made to documents that are ready for advancement and are otherwise in a clear state?
- [x] If publication of this document changes the status of any existing RFCs, are those RFCs listed on the title page header, and are the changes listed in the abstract and discussed (explained, not just mentioned) in the introduction?
 'Does not apply'
- [x] If this is a "bis" document, have all of the errata been considered?
 'Does not apply'

**IANA** Considerations:

- [x] Are the IANA Considerations clear and complete? Remember that IANA have to understand unambiguously what's being requested, so they can perform the required actions.
- [x] Are all protocol extensions that the document makes associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries?
- [x] Are all IANA registries referred to by their exact names (check them in http://www.iana.org/protocols/ to be sure)?
- [x] Have you checked that any registrations made by this document correctly follow the policies and procedures for the appropriate registries?
- [x] For registrations that require expert review (policies of Expert Review or Specification Required), have you or the working group had any early review done, to make sure the requests are ready for last call?
- [x] For any new registries that this document creates, has the working group actively chosen the allocation procedures and policies and discussed the alternatives?
 'Does not apply'
- [x]  Have reasonable registry names been chosen (that will not be confused with those of other registries), and have the initial contents and valid value ranges been clearly specified?
 'Does not apply'
Back