Subject: [HOKEY] proto write-up for draft-ietf-hokey-ldn-discovery

From: Tina TSOU <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 28 Sep 2010 18:11:02 +0800

Hi Tim,
This is the proto write-up for draft-ietf-hokey-ldn-discovery.

(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? 

The document shepherd is Tina Tsou. I have reviewed the document,  
and believe it is ready for publication.

(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 document went through a WGLC and solicited comments from DHC WG. 
The comments were minor and were addressed. The delay in publication was to in order to wait to draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-relay-supplied-options to go to publication. The document shepherd has no concerns about the review process.

(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? 

No concerns, I think that the IESG review to documents of this type should be sufficient to capture any
unclear use of terminology that wasn't immediately obvious in the DHC
working group.

(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. 

IPR disclosure to this document has been brought to the attention of the 
working group. There are no other 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?   

Consensus is strong.

  (1.f) 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 
        entered into the ID Tracker.) 

There was no dissent in the last call.

(1.g) Has the Document Shepherd personally verified that the 
        document satisfies all ID nits? (See the Internet-Drafts Checklist 
        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? 

None.

(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]. 

References have been split. There is a normative reference to 
draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-relay-supplied-options which has been ready for WGLC in DHC Working Group.

(1.i) Has the Document Shepherd verified that the document IANA 
        consideration 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 [RFC5226]. If the 
        document describes an Expert Review process has Shepherd 
        conferred with the Responsible Area Director so that the IESG 
        can appoint the needed Expert during the IESG Evaluation? 

The IANA considerations section exists; the registry is identified and there are no other new registries

(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? 

The document doesn't contain any such sections.

(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. The approval 
        announcement contains the following sections: 

Technical Summary 

      This document specifies a Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol Version
      6 (DHCPv6) option designed to allow a DHCPv6 server to inform clients
      of the name of the local domain.

     Working Group Summary 
 This document appeared in the working group in the middle of
 2009.  There has been substantial interest in this document.

Document Quality 
       The document is a product of the Hokey working group. The document has 
       working group consensus.

Personnel
 Who is the Document Shepherd for this document?  Who is the
 Responsible Area Director?  If the document requires IANA
 experts(s), insert 'The IANA Expert(s) for the registries
 in this document are <TO BE ADDED BY THE AD>.'

The document shepherd is Tina Tsou <[email-masked]>. The responsible A-D is Tim Polk.

B. R.
Tina
http://tinatsou.weebly.com