As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document
Shepherd Write-Up.
Changes are expected over time. This version is dated 24 February 2012.
(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? Proposed
Standard (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: The policy for
registration of sub-services of the service URN with the 'sos' service type, as
defined in RFC 5031, prevents the registration of a sub-service of the service
URN with the 'sos' service type for a service that, at the time of
registration, is offered in one country only. This draft updates the procedures
in RFC5031. Working Group Summary: There is strong consensus in the Working
Group for this change to RFC5031. The only objection was the missing WG
milestones, which has now been resolved. 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? This draft updated registration procedures in RFC5031, no
protocol changes are requested. Personnel: Who is the Document Shepherd? Who is
the Responsible Area Director? Document Shepherd = Marc Linsner
(mlinsner@cisco.com<mailto:mlinsner@cisco.com>) Responsible Area Director =
Richard Barnes (mailto:rlb@ipv.sx) (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 reviewed the document for missing elements, nits, and
overall readability. (4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the
depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed? The document has been
reviewed by several ECRIT participants and is ready for publication. (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. No, the
document is ready for publication. (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. There are no concerns from me or the working group. (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? The has been no IPR disclosures submitted on this
document. (8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document?
If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR
disclosures. NA (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? All reviewers
of this document support it going forward, there are no objections. (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. == There are 1 instance of lines with
non-RFC2606-compliant FQDNs in the document.
-- The draft header indicates that this document updates RFC5031, but the
abstract doesn't seem to directly say this. It does mention RFC5031 though, so
this could be OK.
(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such
as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews. No formal review required,
updates registration procedures only. (13) Have all references within this
document been identified as either normative or informative? NA (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? NA (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. NA (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 update registration
procedures in RFC5031. (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 author updated the IANA section to meet WG criteria before
submission. (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.
Followed comments on the WG mail list, read the document, discussed with the
author(s) specific IANA instructions, ran Idnits.