Subject: [Ecrit] Request to Publish - draft-ietf-ecrit-lost-sync-12

From: Marc Linsner <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 31 Aug 2011 15:21:26 -0400

Please publish draft-ietf-ecrit-lost-sync-12.

The PROTO write-up is below.

Thanks,

Marc Linsner

 (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?

Marc Linsner ([email-masked] <mailto:[email-masked]> )

Yes, this document 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 has gone through repeated wg reviews and a review by the XML
directorate.

(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, the document is ready for publication.

(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 1257 was announced to the wg on 2/8/10
(http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ecrit/current/msg07012.html
<http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ecrit/current/msg07012.html> ) with no
ensuing discussion.  The protocol in this document is an extension of RFC
5222 where the identical IPR claims were filed (IPR 877 & 880).

(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?

The document has a solid support base.  There were 2 working group last
calls (1-24-09 - 
(http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ecrit/current/msg05851.html) & 3-11-09
- (http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ecrit/current/msg06116.html
<http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ecrit/current/msg06116.html> )).  All
issues with this document were resolved to the consensus of the wg.

(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.)

No.

(1.g) Has the Document Shepherd personally verified that the document
satisfies all ID nits? (See the Internet-Drafts Checklist
<https://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist.html>  and
http://tools.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ <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?

As mentioned earlier, this document was reviewed by the XML Directorate and
passed the idnits tool.

(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].

Yes, this document has references split between normative and informative.
All references are completed documents.

(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 are clear and concise.

(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?

This document has validated correctly.

(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

The Location-to-Service Translation (LoST) protocol (RFC5222) is an
XML-based protocol for mapping service identifiers and geodetic or civic
location information to service URIs and service boundaries.  In particular,
it can be used to determine the location-appropriate Public Safety Answering
Point (PSAP) for emergency services.

The main data structure, the <mapping> element, used for encapsulating
information about service boundaries is defined in the LoST protocol
specification and circumscribes the region within which all locations map to
the same service Uniform Resource Identifier (URI) or set of URIs for a
given service.

This document defines an XML protocol to exchange these mappings

between two nodes.  This mechanism is designed for the exchange of
authoritative <mapping> elements between two entities.  Exchanging cached
<mapping> elements, i.e. non-authoritative elements, is possible but not
envisioned.  In any case, this document can also be used without the LoST
protocol even though the format of the <mapping> element is re-used from the
LoST specification.

Working Group Summary

There is consensus in the WG to publish this document.

Document Quality 

The LoST protocol was implemented during the development of RFC5222
specification.  This extension has been tested in various company-internal
implementations, as reported to the wg chairs. The LoST specification has
experienced extensive review, including reviews by other SDOs. The protocol
extension is an important building block in the NENA i3 architecture.