Below, please find the document write-up for draft-rosen-rph-reg-policy-01.
(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 document is proposed to be a Standards Track publication. This
designation is requested because the contents comprise a normative update
to RFC 4412, which is itself 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:
RFC4412 defines "Resource-Priority Namespaces" and "Resource-Priority
Priority-values" registries. The management policy of these registries
is "Standards Action". This document normatively updates RFC4412 to
change the management policy of these registries to "IETF Review".
Working Group Summary:
Discussion in the SIPCORE working group was minimal. Aside from some
editorial changes, the only substantive comment was a request for
further clarifications to RFC 4412. The suggested additional work
was not taken on in this document.
Document Quality:
The document is a trivial update to RFC 4412, and its purpose is clear
and unambiguous. The document is administrative in nature, and as such
does not propose protocol mechanisms.
Personnel:
Adam Roach is the document shepherd. Richard Barnes 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 read the entire document carefully and believes
that it serves its intended purpose and is ready for publication.
Please see the RFC editor notes at the end of this write-up for some
editorial corrections.
(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of
the reviews that have been performed?
Given the nature of this document, the shepherd believes that the level of
review that has been undertaken is sufficient.
(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.
(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 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?
Yes, the author has confirmed that any necessary 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.
No IPR notices have been filed on this document or its predecessors.
(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?
Review in the working group was sparse; however, there was no objection in
the working group to its publication. Given its administrative nature,
the level of interest in this document by the working group is as expected.
(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 discontent has been expressed.
(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 document passes a nits check.
(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such
as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.
This document has had no additional formal reviews.
(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 WG
considers it unnecessary.
The document updates RFC 4412, but does not change its status.
(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).
This document does not create or add any entries to IANA registries. It does,
however, update the registration policy for two tables. Both the tables
and the new policy are clearly identified.
(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.
No expert review is established by this document.
(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 is defined by this document.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Additional information:
During the processing of draft-polk-local-emergency-rph-namespace, the IESG,
authors, and WG chairs determined that the policy described in RFC4412,
section 9 for defining a new namespace (Standards-Track RFC) was probably
selected in error, and that "IETF Review" is likely more appropriate. This
information was provided to both the ECRIT and SIPCORE working groups, and
no objection to a change in policy was raised. This document is the result of
those proposed changes.
Note that draft-polk-local-emergency-rph-namespace is currently pending
publication, blocked on this document. draft-polk-local-emergency-rph-namespace
is, in turn, a 3GPP dependency.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
RFC Editor Notes:
Please update the abstract as follows;
OLD:
RFC4412 ti change the management policy of these registries to "IETF
NEW:
RFC4412 to change the management policy of these registries to "IETF
^^
Please update section section 2 as follows;
OLD:
This document does not introduce any the security considerations
NEW:
This document does not introduce any security considerations
^^^