Shepherd writeup
rfc8137-06

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?

An Informational RFC is being requested. An Informational RFC is
appropriate because the goal of this document is to request an
assignment from the IEEE.

(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

   IEEE Std 802.15.4 defines Information Elements (IEs) that can be used
   to extend 802.15.4 in an interoperable manner.  The IEEE 802.15
   Assigned Numbers Authority (ANA) manages the registry of the
   Information Elements.  This document formulates a request for ANA to
   allocate a number from that registry for IETF, and describes how the
   IE is formatted to provide subtypes.

 Working Group Summary

  This is document is of relevance to several IETF working groups
across multiple areas.

 Document Quality

There are no known implementations of this mechanism in the IETF
context but several WGs have expressed interest in using this IE once
it is allocated to the IETF. This document is being AD sponsored but
the draft was sent to multiple WG mailing lists and an RG mailing list
for review. All of the comments received on the reviewed version were
addressed in this current version.

 Personnel

 Francesca Palombini is the document shepherd. Suresh Krishnan is 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 IESG.

The shepherd has read the latest revision of the document (v-04) and 
thinks it is ready for publication.

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

No.

(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.

N/A

(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 interested
community has discussed those issues and has indicated that it still
wishes to advance the document, detail those concerns here.

N/A

(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.

Yes.

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

No.

(9) How solid is the consensus of the interested community behind this
document? Does it represent the strong concurrence of a few
individuals, with others being silent, or does the interested
community as a whole understand and agree with it?

There was significant support across multiple WGs to progress 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.)

No.

(11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this
document. (See https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the
Internet-Drafts Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this
check needs to be thorough.

N/A

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

N/A

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

Yes.

(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?

No.

(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.

No.

(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 interested community considers it unnecessary.

No.

(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 creates a new IANA registry and the policy has been
clearly specified.

(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.

This document creates a new registry for IETF IE subtype IDs registry
that will require Expert Review.

(19) Describe reviews and automated checks performed by to validate
sections of the document written in a formal language, such as XML
code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc.

N/A
Back