Shepherd writeup

PROTO write-up for draft-ietf-spp-framework

(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?

  Publication as Proposed Standard is being requested. The document 
  specifies a (transport-agnostic) provisioning protocol, including a 
  data and transaction model, hence the WG is in strong concensus that 
  Standards Track is the proper document track.

  The requested type of RFC is included in the title 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 document specifies the data model and the overall structure for
  a framework to provision session establishment data into Session Data
  Registries and SIP Service Provider data stores. The framework is
  called the Session Peering Provisioning Framework (SPPF). The
  provisioned data is typically used by network elements
  for session

Working Group Summary:

  Given the small size of the working group, particularly towards the 
  end of the document creation process, most of the active WG 
  participants were also part of the Design Team. All issues were 
  discussed extensively in the Design Team to achieve strong consensus. 
  Since the design team represented a vast majority of the active WG 
  participants, the shepherd believes that there is strong concensus by 
  the WG behind the documents.

  During the design process a complete restructuring of the set of 
  documents was performed, in order for the protocol to become transfer-
  agnostic. Specifically, this was in consideration of an additional
  future REST-based transport specification.

Document Quality:

  A prototype-level implementation was performed by WG participants, 
  involving programmers who were not involved in the protocol 
  specification. Lessons learned from that implementation were fed back 
  into the protocol specification. Furthermore, the Design Team that 
  created the documents included several potential implementers with 
  concrete plans to use the protocol in their networks.

  The design team was in substantive favour of using SOAP as transfer 
  protocol, since this is what target networks currently use for 
  provisioning. However, due to concerns brought to the attention of the 
  group from within as well as outside the working group, significant 
  efforts were undertaken to segregate core („framework“) definitions 
  from the actual transport definition, and hence allow ing for the 
  future definitions of other transport protocols.

  Alexander Mayrhofer serves as the Document Shepherd, and Richard 
  Barnes serves as the responsible AD.

(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 

  The document shepherd performed a detailed NITS review on version -04, 
  and an additional review on version -05. Subsequent versions only 
  contained minor modifications, and the shepherd performed an 
  additional automated NITS review on version -09. Additionally, the 
  document was reviewed by the same person during WGLC, and many times 
  before that. All issues are believed to be addressed in the latest 
  version of the document.

(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or  breadth of the reviews that have been performed?

  Due to the small size of the WG (particularly after splitting off the 
  transport protocol definitions), reviews were mostly performed by the 
  Design Team members themselves. However, during WGLC the WG chairs 
  specifically engaged „outside“ reviewers in order to get „fresh eyes“ 
  on the document. Subsequently, their comments were addressed in 
  document revisions.

(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 

  The document contains XML Schema definitions. Even though the Schemas 
  were reviewed and validated by authors / reviewers, the document could 
  benefit from an additional “3rd party” validation of the Schemas.

(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.

  The document specifies an IANA Registry with just 1 (one) initial 
  entry. Since additional entries are believed to be very infrequent,
  the IESG’s advice is desired whether to remove that Registry in favour 
  of a „static“ definition with that single entry (and advice that 
  future specifications might want to create an IANA registry 

(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?

  Each author has confirmed that there are no IPR claims about the 
  contents of the draft, and that they are not a ware of such claims.

(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If 
so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR 

  No IPR claims have been filed.

(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?

  Within the Design Team, solid consensus was sought for each issue, and 
  minutes from the weekly conference calls were sent back to the WG 
  mailing list. Due to the small size of the WG, active participants 
  were almost exclusively also part of the Design Team. Therefore, there 
  is solid WG consensus behind the document.

(10) Has anyone threatened an appeal or other wise 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 appeal was threatened, nor did anybody indicate extreme discontent.

(11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this 
document. (See and the Internet-Drafts 
Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be 

  The document shepherd performed a detailed NITS review for version 
  -05. Between -05 and the current -09 version, there were (with the 
  exception of adding a formal IANA registry definition) only editorial 
  changes and NITS fixes. 

  An automated NITS check was performed on version -09 in order to 
  confirm that all NITS have been fixed.

  The automated NITS check seems to detected one unused reference, 
  however, a manual check confirms that the reference is being used in 
  the text.

(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review 
criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.

  Besides the basic requirements, the document does not contain any 
  content that is believed to be subject to additional formal review 

(13) Have all references within this document been identified as either 
normative or informative?

  Yes, references have been split in normative an 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?

  All normative references are RFC-level documents.

(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.

  There are no downrefs

(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.

  This document will not change the status of any existing RFC.

(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 requests two URN assignments for the XML namespace, and 
  the XML schema, respectively. Those are outlined in the IANA 
  considerations section

  Furthermore, the document specifies a newly created IANA registry that 
  is specified in detail in Section 11.2. The registry contains just a 
  single initial entry. 

  A reasonable name, allocation procedures and initial contents of that 
  registry has been specified.

  However, feedback from the IESG is thought with regards to the 
  registry specification of the „SPPF Organization Identifier“. See (6) 
  above for details.

(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.

  See above. The registry specified does not use “Expert Review” as the 
  allocation mechanism.

(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.

  The document shepherd has performed (besides the manual review) an 
  automated NITS check with idnits 2.13.0. Issues discovered by that 
  check are included in the NITS section above. Furthermore, the 
  Document Shepherd has validated the XML schema using automated tools.

  Furthermore, Ning Zhang has volunteered to perform a review, 
  submitting his results during the IETF LC.