Shepherd writeup

(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?

The type of RFC being requested is Proposed Standard.  Proposed Standard is appropriate because this document defines an extension to a current Proposed Standard RFC (RFC 5985).  The title page header indicates that the document is to be Standards Track.

(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:

   A method is described by which a Device is able to provide location-
   related measurement data to a LIS within a request for location
   information.  Location-related measurement information are
   observations concerning properties related to the position of a
   Device, which could be data about network attachment or about the
   physical environment.  When a LIS generates location information for
   a Device, information from the Device can improve the accuracy of the
   location estimate.  A basic set of location-related measurements are
   defined, including common modes of network attachment as well as
   assisted Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS) parameters.

Working Group Summary:

There is strong consensus around this document in the working group.  It is required for the HELD protocol to meet many use cases that are satisfied with proprietary protocols today.

Document Quality:

There are a few existing prototype implementations of the protocol.  Prototype implementations were deployed at a few IETF meetings.  The document references standards from several other SDOs, so the authors solicited reviews by experts on the relevant standards.  The document has been updated to the satisfaction of those experts.


The Document Shepherd is Alissa Cooper.
The responsible Area Director is Richard Barnes.

(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 reviewed this document, and find it clear and implementable.

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

I do not have concerns about the depth or breadth of review that has 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.

This document defines new XML data structures, and extends the HELD schema (RFC 5985).  It has not been reviewed by the XML directorate, but its use of XML is straightforward enough that I do not believe a review to be necessary.

(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.

I do not have any specific concerns.

(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?

All authors have confirmed that all relevent IPR disclosures have been filed.

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

One IPR disclosure has been filed against this document.  There was some discussion of the disclosure, and the WG agreed that it should not be blocking for this document.

(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?

There is strong consensus for this document.  Several WG participants have expressed the opinion that it address a necessary use case.

(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.)

There are no threatened appeals.

(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 thorough.

There are a few reference issues that need to be fixed: the RFC 0020 reference should be removed, and the ASCII reference does not display properly. Otherwise, the document has no nits.

(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 require any formal reviews.

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

Yes.  References are divided into normative and 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?

There are no such references.

(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 such references.

(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 does not change the status of any existing RFCs.

(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's IANA Considerations section correctly registers all parameters required by the 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.

The document creates a new IANA registry for GNSS types, operating under "Specification Required" rules. As the registration space is not a scarce resource, the bar for the designated expert's expertise need not be especially high. The designee need not be an expert in GNSS systems; the key is to find someone capable of detecting unsubtle attempts at fraud or obvious duplication.

(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.

I have validated that all XML schemas are valid, and all XML examples are well-formed, using the W3C online XML validator.