(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?
Informational. It is indicated in the title page header. As this document does not contain RFC2119 requirement languages. And this working group was chartered to do the informational analysis at the beginning, so every document for this stage is informational.
(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:
This document presents an architecture for accessing application agnostic in-network storage, discusses the underlying principles, and identifies key functionalities in the architecture for introducing a DECADE-compatible in-network storage system. In addition, some examples are given to illustrate these concepts.
Working Group Summary:
This document is a product of the DECADE WG, and was reviewed in working group meetings and via the firstname.lastname@example.org list. The consensus was made both in meeting and mailing list.
The document was reviewed by DECADE WG members, the WG Chairs, and key non-WG contributors, particularly by Konstantinos Pentikousis, Peng Zhang, Stephen Farrell, Carsten Bormann, David Harrington, David E Mcdysan, Borje Ohlman, and Ning Zong. The authors addressed all the comments, especially removed the optimization details from the architecture document. A few vendors and ISPs are interested in implementing/testing.
Haibin Song (email@example.com) is the document shepherd. Martin Stiemerling (firstname.lastname@example.org) 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.
This document is in good shape, it covers the important features for data resource protocol and data transport protocol, and specifies the main characteristics of the data objects, access&authorization token and naming scheme. It is a good framework to design the application agnostic in-network storage used for content distribution. This document now presented is ready for publication.
(4) Does the document Shepherd 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 WG has discussed those issues and has indicated that it still wishes to advance the document, detail those concerns here.
(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.
(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures.
(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?
The WG support this document for publication. Individual protocol related documents have been proposed based on this architecture draft(although the re-chartering process has not been finished yet).
(10) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If so, please summarize 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.
(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.
This document does not include any such formal language.
(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?
DECADE requirements draft (draft-ietf-decade-reqs-08) is a normative reference. These two documents are intended to go through the publication process together so as to avoid the reference to a unstable draft. The write-up for the DECADE requirements draft has been sent to the responsible area director.
(15) Are there downward normative 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 WG 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).
The document does not have any IANA considerations.
(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.
(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.
This document does not include any such formal language.