Subject: [Ecrit] PROTO write-up for draft-ietf-ecrit-dhc-lost-discovery-02.txt

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

PROTO WRITEUP for draft-ietf-ecrit-dhc-lost-discovery-02.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 publications 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 DHCP-basedFrom [email-masked] Mon Sep 24 16:31:04 2007
From: "Marc Linsner" <[email-masked]>
To: "'Peterson, Jon'" <[email-masked]>, <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2007 16:30:23 -0400
Cc: 'ECRIT' <[email-masked]>
Subject: [Ecrit] PROTO write-up for
	draft-ietf-ecrit-dhc-lost-discovery-02.txt

PROTO WRITEUP for draft-ietf-ecrit-dhc-lost-discovery-02.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 publications 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 DHCP-based LoST discovery is part of the LoST specification. It provides
a possibility for the end host to learn LoST servers that are closer to the
client. Such a LoST server placement provides benefits in disaster
situations with intermittent network connectivity regarding the resiliency
of emergency service communication.

The document has been reviewed by ECRIT and DHC working group members. The
document experienced two WGLCs (scheduled 
together with the LoST specification) on the ECRIT and the DHC WG. 
      
The two WGLCs were posted 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.

There are no concerns. 
      
  (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 consensus behind this document.

   (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 normative and informative references.

   (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?  Doe LoST discovery is part of the LoST specification. It provides
a possibility for the end host to learn LoST servers that are closer to the
client. Such a LoST server placement provides benefits in disaster
situations with intermittent network connectivity regarding the resiliency
of emergency service communication.

The document has been reviewed by ECRIT and DHC working group members. The
document experienced two WGLCs (scheduled 
together with the LoST specification) on the ECRIT and the DHC WG. 
      
The two WGLCs were posted 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.

There are no concerns. 
      
  (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 consensus behind this document.

   (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 normative and informative references.

   (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. 

   (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?

There are no such sections in the document. 
   
   (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-dhc-lost-discovery-02

Technical Summary

   The Location-to-Service Translation Protocol (LoST) describes an XML-
   based protocol for mapping service identifiers and geospatial or
   civic location information to service contact Uniform Resource
   Locators (URLs).  LoST servers can be located anywhere but a
   placement closer to the end host, e.g., in the access network, is
   desirable.  Such a LoST server placement provides benefits in
   disaster situations with intermittent network connectivity regarding
   the resiliency of emergency service communication.

   This document describes how a LoST client can discover a LoST server
   using the Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol (DHCP).

Working Group Summary

      There is consensus in the WG to publish this document.

Document Quality

      Although the LoST specification has been implemented there are 
      no implementations known for the DHCP-based discovery 
      procedure. From a deployment point of view it is likely 
      that the DNS-based discovery procedure will be available
      before this document will see a deployment. 
      
Personnel

      Marc Linsner is the document shepherd for this document.  

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