Service Discovery Usage for REsource LOcation And Discovery (RELOAD)
(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?
The document has received significant community review, and appears to enjoy
enough community interest to be considered valuable. It defines extensions to
RFC6940, which also has the status of Proposed Standard.
Is this type of RFC indicated 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:
The document defines how to apply the Recursive Distributed Rendezvous (ReDiR)
service discovery mechanism used in OpenDHT in RELOAD to provide a generic
service discovery mechanism. ReDiR implements service discovery by building a
tree structure of the service providers that provide a particular service. The
tree structure is stored into the RELOAD Overlay Instance using RELOAD Store
and Fetch requests.
Working Group Summary:
The normal WG process was followed and the document has been discussed for
several years. The document as it is now, reflects WG consensus, with nothing
special worth noting.
The document was thoroughly reviewed by Marc Petit-Huguenin and Carlos J.
Bernardos. Joscha Schneider also reviewed it by doing a basic implementation of
the mechanism described in the document.
Who is the Document Shepherd?
Carlos J. Bernardos
Who 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.
The Document Shepherd has personally done a thorough review of the document.
Some changes (mainly editorial) were requested to the authors and included in
the last revision of the draft. The Document Shepherd believes the document is
ready for forwarding to IESG for publication.
(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of
the reviews that have been performed?
The Document Shepherd has no concerns about the depth or breadth of these
(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.
A review of Section 8 was requested and provided by the APPS area (Martin
(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 Shepherd has no such 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?
(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?
There is WG consensus behind this document.
(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.)
(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.
The idnits tool returns: 1 error (1 instance of too long lines in the document);
1 warning (it does not seem to be really a problem, but reducing the identation
in Section 4.1 might solve the previous error; 6 comments (none of them seems
to be a problem).
(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such
as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.
The document meets the review criteria.
(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?
(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
(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 introduces one additional access control policy to the "RELOAD
Access Control Policy" Registry and one additional data Kind-ID to the
"RELOAD Data Kind-ID" Registry. These registry are described in
The document also requests the IANA to create a "ReDiR Namespaces" Registry. A
detailed specification of the initial contents for the registry is provided.
(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.
No formal language segments exist.