Reliable and Available Wireless Technologies
draft-ietf-raw-technologies-08
Revision differences
Document history
Date | Rev. | By | Action |
---|---|---|---|
2023-10-20
|
08 | Cindy Morgan | Moving to DETNET with the closure of the RAW WG |
2023-10-20
|
08 | Cindy Morgan | IETF WG state changed to WG Document from Submitted to IESG for Publication |
2023-10-20
|
08 | Cindy Morgan | Notification list changed to cjbc@it.uc3m.es from cjbc@it.uc3m.es |
2023-10-20
|
08 | Cindy Morgan | Changed group to Deterministic Networking (DETNET) from Reliable and Available Wireless (RAW) |
2023-10-20
|
08 | John Scudder | ## Document History 1. Does the working group (WG) consensus represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others being silent, or did … ## Document History 1. Does the working group (WG) consensus represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others being silent, or did it reach broad agreement? The document had strong consensus during the meetings from a few individuals, with others being silent. During the WGLC by e-mail, no specific e-mails were sent either in favor or in opposition, but some with comments that were incorporated by the authors. As a RAW WG participant, in my opinion this document has broad consensus, though it has not been materialized through responses to the WGLC. 2. Was there controversy about particular points, or were there decisions where the consensus was particularly rough? No. 3. 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.) No. 4. For protocol documents, are there existing implementations of the contents of the document? Have a significant number of potential implementers indicated plans to implement? Are any existing implementations reported somewhere, either in the document itself (as [RFC 7942][3] recommends) or elsewhere (where)? N/A. It's an informational document ## Additional Reviews 5. Do the contents of this document closely interact with technologies in other IETF working groups or external organizations, and would it therefore benefit from their review? Have those reviews occurred? If yes, describe which reviews took place. The document describes technologies owned by other SDOs. I don't think reviews from external organizations are needed, as the contributors to the document do participate on those organizations and are skilled in the matter. No reviews from external organizations have taken place formally. 6. Describe how the document meets any required formal expert review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews. No such formal expert review required. 7. If the document contains a YANG module, has the final version of the module been checked with any of the [recommended validation tools][4] for syntax and formatting validation? If there are any resulting errors or warnings, what is the justification for not fixing them at this time? Does the YANG module comply with the Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA) as specified in [RFC 8342][5]? The document does not contain a YANG module. 8. Describe reviews and automated checks performed to validate sections of the final version of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, CBOR's CDDL, etc. No formal language review required. Shepherd's review: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/raw/8n9UKZ-HwpOZW28j0G7UOBIo0H4/ Comments have been resolved. RTG directorate review: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtg-dir/6hBPdFnyYJUDKcjSllcOPsI2E0o Authors have addressed the comments. ## Document Shepherd Checks 9. Based on the shepherd's review of the document, is it their opinion that this document is needed, clearly written, complete, correctly designed, and ready to be handed off to the responsible Area Director? Yes. This document is a useful informational complement to the RAW baseline set of documents. 10. Several IETF Areas have assembled [lists of common issues that their reviewers encounter][6]. For which areas have such issues been identified and addressed? For which does this still need to happen in subsequent reviews? No issues have been identified. 11. What type of RFC publication is being requested on the IETF stream ([Best Current Practice][12], [Proposed Standard, Internet Standard][13], [Informational, Experimental or Historic][14])? Why is this the proper type of RFC? Do all Datatracker state attributes correctly reflect this intent? As stated on the title page, Informational is requested. This is appropriate for this document, as it describes technologies that can be used for RAW. 12. Have reasonable efforts been made to remind all authors of the intellectual property rights (IPR) disclosure obligations described in [BCP 79][7]? To the best of your knowledge, have all required disclosures been filed? If not, explain why. If yes, summarize any relevant discussion, including links to publicly-available messages when applicable. Yes. All authors have stated that they are not aware of any undisclosed IPR related to this document. 13. Has each author, editor, and contributor shown their willingness to be listed as such? If the total number of authors and editors on the front page is greater than five, please provide a justification. Yes. The document has 5 authors listed on the front page. The document was the result of the merge of several technology specific documents. 14. Document any remaining I-D nits in this document. Simply running the [idnits tool][8] is not enough; please review the ["Content Guidelines" on authors.ietf.org][15]. (Also note that the current idnits tool generates some incorrect warnings; a rewrite is underway.) The idnits tool returns minor issues with non-ascii occurrences. 15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the [IESG Statement on Normative and Informative References][16]. I believe the references are correcly clasified as informative and normative. 16. List any normative references that are not freely available to anyone. Did the community have sufficient access to review any such normative references? There are none. 17. Are there any normative downward references (see [RFC 3967][9] and [BCP 97][10]) that are not already listed in the [DOWNREF registry][17]? If so, list them. There are no downward references. 18. Are there normative references to documents that are not ready to be submitted to the IESG for publication or are otherwise in an unclear state? If so, what is the plan for their completion? There are none. 19. Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? If so, does the Datatracker metadata correctly reflect this and are those RFCs listed on the title page, in the abstract, and discussed in the introduction? If not, explain why and point to the part of the document where the relationship of this document to these other RFCs is discussed. No. 20. 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 aspects of the document requiring IANA assignments are associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm that each newly created IANA registry specifies its initial contents, allocations procedures, and a reasonable name (see [RFC 8126][11]). The IANA considerations section does not require IANA action. 21. List any new IANA registries that require Designated Expert Review for future allocations. Are the instructions to the Designated Expert clear? Please include suggestions of designated experts, if appropriate. There are none. [1]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/ [2]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4858.html [3]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7942.html [4]: https://wiki.ietf.org/group/ops/yang-review-tools [5]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8342.html [6]: https://wiki.ietf.org/group/iesg/ExpertTopics [7]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp79 [8]: https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ [9]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3967.html [10]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp97 [11]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8126.html [12]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-5 [13]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.1 [14]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.2 [15]: https://authors.ietf.org/en/content-guidelines-overview [16]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/normative-informative-references/ [17]: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/downref/ |
2023-10-20
|
08 | John Scudder | Responsible AD changed to John Scudder |
2023-10-20
|
08 | John Scudder | IETF WG state changed to Submitted to IESG for Publication from WG Consensus: Waiting for Write-Up |
2023-10-20
|
08 | John Scudder | IESG state changed to Publication Requested from I-D Exists |
2023-10-20
|
08 | John Scudder | Document is now in IESG state Publication Requested |
2023-10-20
|
08 | John Scudder | Intended Status changed to Informational from None |
2023-07-25
|
08 | Carlos Jesús Bernardos | ## Document History 1. Does the working group (WG) consensus represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others being silent, or did … ## Document History 1. Does the working group (WG) consensus represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others being silent, or did it reach broad agreement? The document had strong consensus during the meetings from a few individuals, with others being silent. During the WGLC by e-mail, no specific e-mails were sent either in favor or in opposition, but some with comments that were incorporated by the authors. As a RAW WG participant, in my opinion this document has broad consensus, though it has not been materialized through responses to the WGLC. 2. Was there controversy about particular points, or were there decisions where the consensus was particularly rough? No. 3. 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.) No. 4. For protocol documents, are there existing implementations of the contents of the document? Have a significant number of potential implementers indicated plans to implement? Are any existing implementations reported somewhere, either in the document itself (as [RFC 7942][3] recommends) or elsewhere (where)? N/A. It's an informational document ## Additional Reviews 5. Do the contents of this document closely interact with technologies in other IETF working groups or external organizations, and would it therefore benefit from their review? Have those reviews occurred? If yes, describe which reviews took place. The document describes technologies owned by other SDOs. I don't think reviews from external organizations are needed, as the contributors to the document do participate on those organizations and are skilled in the matter. No reviews from external organizations have taken place formally. 6. Describe how the document meets any required formal expert review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews. No such formal expert review required. 7. If the document contains a YANG module, has the final version of the module been checked with any of the [recommended validation tools][4] for syntax and formatting validation? If there are any resulting errors or warnings, what is the justification for not fixing them at this time? Does the YANG module comply with the Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA) as specified in [RFC 8342][5]? The document does not contain a YANG module. 8. Describe reviews and automated checks performed to validate sections of the final version of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, CBOR's CDDL, etc. No formal language review required. Shepherd's review: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/raw/8n9UKZ-HwpOZW28j0G7UOBIo0H4/ Comments have been resolved. RTG directorate review: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtg-dir/6hBPdFnyYJUDKcjSllcOPsI2E0o Authors have addressed the comments. ## Document Shepherd Checks 9. Based on the shepherd's review of the document, is it their opinion that this document is needed, clearly written, complete, correctly designed, and ready to be handed off to the responsible Area Director? Yes. This document is a useful informational complement to the RAW baseline set of documents. 10. Several IETF Areas have assembled [lists of common issues that their reviewers encounter][6]. For which areas have such issues been identified and addressed? For which does this still need to happen in subsequent reviews? No issues have been identified. 11. What type of RFC publication is being requested on the IETF stream ([Best Current Practice][12], [Proposed Standard, Internet Standard][13], [Informational, Experimental or Historic][14])? Why is this the proper type of RFC? Do all Datatracker state attributes correctly reflect this intent? As stated on the title page, Informational is requested. This is appropriate for this document, as it describes technologies that can be used for RAW. 12. Have reasonable efforts been made to remind all authors of the intellectual property rights (IPR) disclosure obligations described in [BCP 79][7]? To the best of your knowledge, have all required disclosures been filed? If not, explain why. If yes, summarize any relevant discussion, including links to publicly-available messages when applicable. Yes. All authors have stated that they are not aware of any undisclosed IPR related to this document. 13. Has each author, editor, and contributor shown their willingness to be listed as such? If the total number of authors and editors on the front page is greater than five, please provide a justification. Yes. The document has 5 authors listed on the front page. The document was the result of the merge of several technology specific documents. 14. Document any remaining I-D nits in this document. Simply running the [idnits tool][8] is not enough; please review the ["Content Guidelines" on authors.ietf.org][15]. (Also note that the current idnits tool generates some incorrect warnings; a rewrite is underway.) The idnits tool returns minor issues with non-ascii occurrences. 15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the [IESG Statement on Normative and Informative References][16]. I believe the references are correcly clasified as informative and normative. 16. List any normative references that are not freely available to anyone. Did the community have sufficient access to review any such normative references? There are none. 17. Are there any normative downward references (see [RFC 3967][9] and [BCP 97][10]) that are not already listed in the [DOWNREF registry][17]? If so, list them. There are no downward references. 18. Are there normative references to documents that are not ready to be submitted to the IESG for publication or are otherwise in an unclear state? If so, what is the plan for their completion? There are none. 19. Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? If so, does the Datatracker metadata correctly reflect this and are those RFCs listed on the title page, in the abstract, and discussed in the introduction? If not, explain why and point to the part of the document where the relationship of this document to these other RFCs is discussed. No. 20. 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 aspects of the document requiring IANA assignments are associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm that each newly created IANA registry specifies its initial contents, allocations procedures, and a reasonable name (see [RFC 8126][11]). The IANA considerations section does not require IANA action. 21. List any new IANA registries that require Designated Expert Review for future allocations. Are the instructions to the Designated Expert clear? Please include suggestions of designated experts, if appropriate. There are none. [1]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/ [2]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4858.html [3]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7942.html [4]: https://wiki.ietf.org/group/ops/yang-review-tools [5]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8342.html [6]: https://wiki.ietf.org/group/iesg/ExpertTopics [7]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp79 [8]: https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ [9]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3967.html [10]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp97 [11]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8126.html [12]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-5 [13]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.1 [14]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.2 [15]: https://authors.ietf.org/en/content-guidelines-overview [16]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/normative-informative-references/ [17]: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/downref/ |
2023-07-10
|
08 | Pascal Thubert | New version available: draft-ietf-raw-technologies-08.txt |
2023-07-10
|
08 | Pascal Thubert | New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Pascal Thubert) |
2023-07-10
|
08 | Pascal Thubert | Uploaded new revision |
2023-06-12
|
07 | Pascal Thubert | New version available: draft-ietf-raw-technologies-07.txt |
2023-06-12
|
07 | Pascal Thubert | New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Pascal Thubert) |
2023-06-12
|
07 | Pascal Thubert | Uploaded new revision |
2023-06-03
|
06 | (System) | Document has expired |
2023-04-02
|
06 | Luc André Burdet | Request for Early review by RTGDIR Completed: Not Ready. Reviewer: Victoria Pritchard. Submission of review completed at an earlier date. |
2023-03-31
|
06 | Luc André Burdet | Request for Early review by RTGDIR Completed: Not Ready. Reviewer: Victoria Pritchard. |
2023-03-17
|
06 | Luc André Burdet | Request for Early review by RTGDIR is assigned to Victoria Pritchard |
2023-03-10
|
06 | John Scudder | Requested Early review by RTGDIR |
2022-11-30
|
06 | Pascal Thubert | New version available: draft-ietf-raw-technologies-06.txt |
2022-11-30
|
06 | Pascal Thubert | New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Pascal Thubert) |
2022-11-30
|
06 | Pascal Thubert | Uploaded new revision |
2022-08-06
|
05 | (System) | Document has expired |
2022-07-11
|
05 | Rick Taylor | Notification list changed to cjbc@it.uc3m.es because the document shepherd was set |
2022-07-11
|
05 | Rick Taylor | Document shepherd changed to Carlos J. Bernardos |
2022-05-03
|
05 | Rick Taylor | IETF WG state changed to WG Consensus: Waiting for Write-Up from In WG Last Call |
2022-02-02
|
05 | Rick Taylor | IETF WG state changed to In WG Last Call from WG Document |
2022-02-02
|
05 | Pascal Thubert | New version available: draft-ietf-raw-technologies-05.txt |
2022-02-02
|
05 | (System) | New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Pascal Thubert) |
2022-02-02
|
05 | Pascal Thubert | Uploaded new revision |
2021-11-08
|
04 | Eve Schooler | Added to session: IETF-112: raw Tue-1200 |
2021-08-03
|
04 | Pascal Thubert | New version available: draft-ietf-raw-technologies-04.txt |
2021-08-03
|
04 | (System) | New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Pascal Thubert) |
2021-08-03
|
04 | Pascal Thubert | Uploaded new revision |
2021-07-29
|
03 | Pascal Thubert | New version available: draft-ietf-raw-technologies-03.txt |
2021-07-29
|
03 | (System) | New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Pascal Thubert) |
2021-07-29
|
03 | Pascal Thubert | Uploaded new revision |
2021-06-07
|
02 | Pascal Thubert | New version available: draft-ietf-raw-technologies-02.txt |
2021-06-07
|
02 | (System) | New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Pascal Thubert) |
2021-06-07
|
02 | Pascal Thubert | Uploaded new revision |
2021-03-07
|
01 | Eve Schooler | Added to session: IETF-110: raw Mon-1300 |
2021-02-19
|
01 | Pascal Thubert | New version available: draft-ietf-raw-technologies-01.txt |
2021-02-19
|
01 | (System) | New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Pascal Thubert) |
2021-02-19
|
01 | Pascal Thubert | Uploaded new revision |
2020-11-15
|
00 | Eve Schooler | Added to session: IETF-109: raw Mon-1200 |
2020-10-20
|
00 | Pascal Thubert | New version available: draft-ietf-raw-technologies-00.txt |
2020-10-20
|
00 | (System) | New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Pascal Thubert) |
2020-10-20
|
00 | Pascal Thubert | Uploaded new revision |