RFC4310bis document writeup
Olafur Gudmundsson <ogud <at> ogud.com>
2010-03-04 03:05:03 GMT
(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?
Olafur Gudmndsson, agreed to take this on after the document entered
IETF last call.
(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?
I have reviewed the document starting with the version LC 03
and tried to assert the disposition of the discussion on the document
on the provreg and ietf mailing lists. The document is now in version
Note: I was active participant in discussion before becoming Document
(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?
The document has been extensively discussed and had been reviewed by
a number of knowledgeable people. From EPP and DNSSEC perspectives
thus I have no concerns about the depth or quality of the reviews.
(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
Overall comments on the document:
This is a high quality document, with excellent editors who have done
a great job of corresponding with commenter and integrating comments
into the final version.
(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?
This document is not a product of a working group, the people that
have participated in the discussions on the document seem to have
come to an agreement that this is a good specification.
As this was not a product of a working group some people that actually
work in this area did not know the discussion of updating RFC4310
was taking place. These same people once they joined the discussion
made significant contributions.
I have not been able to identify any "silent" group that may not
grasp the content of this document.
(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.)
(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?
There are few nits due to the ever changing boilerplates and tools not
being available when BP changes .
I found one minor error in section 4.1. cites RFC3757 but should use the
document that obsoleted it, RFC4034.
(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].
No down refs once the RFC3757 reference is updated to RFC4034.
(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 is clear.
(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 XML code in the document passed my visual inspection and simple
XML syntax checker. I have confidence that the XML syntax is correct
but it would be useful if someone double checked.
Short history of Last call:
Version 03 posted
Last call issued:
Eduardo Duarte: Multiple DS and [in]active DS's
Mailing list praticipants is not clear if this is
needed and furthermore can not agree
on what the meaning of "active" is.
--> not reflected in document
Bernie Hoensisen Version numbers needs to change
-> accepted to reflect major changes in format
BH: Broken rem support should be dropped
-> included in 04
Andrew Sullivan: Setting TTL
-> not accepted not enough support
Multiple people: Multiple different MAXSIgLife statements
-> move outside each DS and have this apply to whole set. 04
(this forced the version number bump)
Version 04 posted
Version 05 added section on backwards compatibility and support of
both versions of the schema.
Version 06 number of clarity issues raised addressed no change in
Version 07 a nits pass
List run by majordomo software. For (Un-)subscription and similar details
send "help" to ietf-provreg-request <at> cafax.se