Subject: [Ecrit] PROTO write-up for draft-ietf-ecrit-lost-06.txt

From: "Marc Linsner" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2007 16:30:23 -0400

PROTO WRITEUP for draft-ietf-ecrit-lost-06.txt
==============================================

   (1.a)  Who is the Document Shepherd for this document?  Has the
          Document Shepherd personally reviewed this version of the
          document and, in particular, does he or she believe this
          version is ready for forwarding to the IESG for publication?

Document Shepherd is Marc Linsner ([email-masked]).
The document is ready for publication and I have reviewed the document
personally.

   (1.b)  Has the document had adequate review both from key WG members
          and from key non-WG members?  Does the Document Shepherd have
          any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that
          have been performed?

The LoST specification has experienced extensive review, including reviews
by other SDOs. The work has been presented to other organizations working in
the area of emergency services at different meetings, including two
emergency services workshops (see
http://www.emergency-services-coordination.info/) and other smaller
information sharing events with the 3GPP and the IEEE. The protocol is also
an important building block in the NENA i3 architecture and reviews have
been provided by NENA members.  
      
Two WGLCs were issued, on 14 February 2007 and on 15 August 2007.

   (1.c)  Does the Document Shepherd have concerns that the document
          needs more review from a particular or broader perspective,
          e.g., security, operational complexity, someone familiar with
          AAA, internationalization, or XML?
          
There are no concerns with the document. 

   (1.d)  Does the Document Shepherd have any specific concerns or
          issues 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.  Has an IPR disclosure related to this document
          been filed?  If so, please include a reference to the
          disclosure and summarize the WG discussion and conclusion on
          this issue.

A few working group members raised issues with the usage of the Relax NG
schema (instead of an XML schema). Tool support 
for XML scook 11
Cc: 'ECRIT' <[email-masked]>
Subject: [Ecrit] PROTO write-up for draft-ietf-ecrit-lost-06.txt

PROTO WRITEUP for draft-ietf-ecrit-lost-06.txt
==============================================

   (1.a)  Who is the Document Shepherd for this document?  Has the
          Document Shepherd personally reviewed this version of the
          document and, in particular, does he or she believe this
          version is ready for forwarding to the IESG for publication?

Document Shepherd is Marc Linsner ([email-masked]).
The document is ready for publication and I have reviewed the document
personally.

   (1.b)  Has the document had adequate review both from key WG members
          and from key non-WG members?  Does the Document Shepherd have
          any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that
          have been performed?

The LoST specification has experienced extensive review, including reviews
by other SDOs. The work has been presented to other organizations working in
the area of emergency services at different meetings, including two
emergency services workshops (see
http://www.emergency-services-coordination.info/) and other smaller
information sharing events with the 3GPP and the IEEE. The protocol is also
an important building block in the NENA i3 architecture and reviews have
been provided by NENA members.  
      
Two WGLCs were issued, on 14 February 2007 and on 15 August 2007.

   (1.c)  Does the Document Shepherd have concerns that the document
          needs more review from a particular or broader perspective,
          e.g., security, operational complexity, someone familiar with
          AAA, internationalization, or XML?
          
There are no concerns with the document. 

   (1.d)  Does the Document Shepherd have any specific concerns or
          issues 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.  Has an IPR disclosure related to this document
          been filed?  If so, please include a reference to the
          disclosure and summarize the WG discussion and conclusion on
          this issue.

A few working group members raised issues with the usage of the Relax NG
schema (instead of an XML schema). Tool support 
for XML schemas is better than with Relax NG. 

Two IPR claims have recently been announced. Active participants in the
working group are authors of patent filings, but not the authors of this
document.  One WG participant raised the following concern, "the timing of
the disclosure doesn't appear to meet the spirit of Section 6.2 of RFC 3979,
possibly opening us up to the ramifications of Section 7 (whatever those may
be)." (see:
http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ecrit/current/msg04191.html)

   (1.e)  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 solid consensus behind this document. Section 19 extensively lists
the reviewers.  

   (1.f)  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
          entered into the ID Tracker.)
          
No. 

   (1.g)  Has the Document Shepherd personally verified that the
          document satisfies all ID nits?  (See
          http://www.ietf.org/ID-Checklist.html and
          http://tools.ietf.org/tools/idnits/.)  Boilerplate checks are
          not enough; this check needs to be thorough.  Has the document
          met all formal review criteria it needs to, such as the MIB
          Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews?  If the document
          does not already indicate its intended status at the top of
          the first page, please indicate the intended status here.

The document does not contain nits. 

   (1.h)  Has the document split its references into normative and
          informative?  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
          strategy for their completion?  Are there normative references
          that are downward references, as described in [RFC3967]?  If
          so, list these downward references to support the Area
          Director in the Last Call procedure for them [RFC3967].

The document has references split into a normative and informative
references. 

There are no downrefs. There are, however, references to documents that were
published outside the IETF, namely reference [11] and [12]. These documents
refer to XML-based location formats developed by the OGC. 
     
A few other dependencies to unfinished documents exist: 

* draft-ietf-ecrit-service-urn-06: This document is in
'Approved-announcement to be sent' state.

* draft-ietf-geopriv-revised-civic-lo-05: This document is in 'Publication
Requested' state. 
     
   (1.i)  Has the Document Shepherd verified that the document's IANA
          Considerations section exists and is consistent with the body
          of the document?  If the document specifies protocol
          extensions, are reservations requested in appropriate IANA
          registries?  Are the IANA registries clearly identified?  If
          the document creates a new registry, does it define the
          proposed initial contents of the registry and an allocation
          procedure for future registrations?  Does it suggest a
          reasonable name for the new registry?  See [RFC2434].  If the
          document describes an Expert Review process, has the Document
          Shepherd conferred with the Responsible Area Director so that
          the IESG can appoint the needed Expert during IESG Evaluation?

An IANA consideration section exists and is consistent with the rest of the
document. The document was sent to the URI review team in February 2007.

   (1.j)  Has the Document Shepherd verified that sections of the
          document that are written in a formal language, such as XML
          code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etchemas is better than with Relax NG. 

Two IPR claims have recently been announced. Active participants in the
working group are authors of patent filings, but not the authors of this
document.  One WG participant raised the following concern, "the timing of
the disclosure doesn't appear to meet the spirit of Section 6.2 of RFC 3979,
possibly opening us up to the ramifications of Section 7 (whatever those may
be)." (see:
http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ecrit/current/msg04191.html)

   (1.e)  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 solid consensus behind this document. Section 19 extensively lists
the reviewers.  

   (1.f)  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
          entered into the ID Tracker.)
          
No. 

   (1.g)  Has the Document Shepherd personally verified that the
          document satisfies all ID nits?  (See
          http://www.ietf.org/ID-Checklist.html and
          http://tools.ietf.org/tools/idnits/.)  Boilerplate checks are
          not enough; this check needs to be thorough.  Has the document
          met all formal review criteria it needs to, such as the MIB
          Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews?  If the document
          does not already indicate its intended status at the top of
          the first page, please indicate the intended status here.

The document does not contain nits. 

   (1.h)  Has the document split its references into normative and
          informative?  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
          strategy for their completion?  Are there normative references
          that are downward references, as described in [RFC3967]?  If
          so, list these downward references to support the Area
          Director in the Last Call procedure for them [RFC3967].

The document has references split into a normative and informative
references. 

There are no downrefs. There are, however, references to documents that were
published outside the IETF, namely reference [11] and [12]. These documents
refer to XML-based location formats developed by the OGC. 
     
A few other dependencies to unfinished documents exist: 

* draft-ietf-ecrit-service-urn-06: This document is in
'Approved-announcement to be sent' state.

* draft-ietf-geopriv-revised-civic-lo-05: This document is in 'Publication
Requested' state. 
     
   (1.i)  Has the Document Shepherd verified that the document's IANA
          Considerations section exists and is consistent with the body
          of the document?  If the document specifies protocol
          extensions, are reservations requested in appropriate IANA
          registries?  Are the IANA registries clearly identified?  If
          the document creates a new registry, does it define the
          proposed initial contents of the registry and an allocation
          procedure for future registrations?  Does it suggest a
          reasonable name for the new registry?  See [RFC2434].  If the
          document describes an Expert Review process, has the Document
          Shepherd conferred with the Responsible Area Director so that
          the IESG can appoint the needed Expert during IESG Evaluation?

An IANA consideration section exists and is consistent with the rest of the
document. The document was sent to the URI review team in February 2007.

   (1.j)  Has the Document Shepherd verified that sections of the
          document that are written in a formal language, such as XML
          code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc., validate correctly in
          an automated checker?

Yes. The schema and the instance document have been validated. 
   
   (1.k)  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. 

Document Announcement Write-Up for draft-ietf-ecrit-lost-06.txt

Technical Summary

      This document describes an XML-based protocol for mapping service
      identifiers and geodetic or civic location information to service
      contact URIs.  In particular, it can be used to determine the
      location-appropriate PSAP for emergency services.

Working Group Summary

      There is consensus in the WG to publish this document.

Document Quality

      The LoST protocol has been implemented during the
      development of the specification. Two public implementations 
      are available and other company-internal implementations
      have been reported to the chairs. Tests have been performed
      between two public implementations and useful feedback was 
      provided to the working group. 

      The LoST specification has experienced extensive review, 
      including reviews by other SDOs. The protocol is an important 
      building block in the NENA i3 architecture. 
      
      Two WGLCs were issued, on 14 February 2007 and on 15 August 2007.
      
Personnel

      Marc Linsner is the document shepherd for this document.  
      The document was sent to the URI review team in February 2007.

_______________________________________________
Ecrit mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ecrit

., validate correctly in
          an automated checker?

Yes. The schema and the instance document have been validated. 
   
   (1.k)  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. 

Document Announcement Write-Up for draft-ietf-ecrit-lost-06.txt

Technical Summary

      This document describes an XML-based protocol for mapping service
      identifiers and geodetic or civic location information to service
      contact URIs.  In particular, it can be used to determine the
      location-appropriate PSAP for emergency services.

Working Group Summary

      There is consensus in the WG to publish this document.

Document Quality

      The LoST protocol has been implemented during the
      development of the specification. Two public implementations 
      are available and other company-internal implementations
      have been reported to the chairs. Tests have been performed
      between two public implementations and useful feedback was 
      provided to the working group. 

      The LoST specification has experienced extensive review, 
      including reviews by other SDOs. The protocol is an important 
      building block in the NENA i3 architecture. 
      
      Two WGLCs were issued, on 14 February 2007 and on 15 August 2007.
      
Personnel

      Marc Linsner is the document shepherd for this document.  
      The document was sent to the URI review team in February 2007.

_______________________________________________
Ecrit mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ecrit