Subject: [Ecrit] Proto for PhoneBCP

From: Marc Linsner <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2009 15:26:47 +0200

Proto for draft-ietf-ecrit-phonebcp

http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ecrit-phonebcp-13

   (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]) - Yes, this version 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?

This document has had multiple WG reviews from key WG members.  This
document was vetted via the Emergency Services Workshop at of it¹s several
meetings.  Organizations participating include: 3GPP, 3GPP2, ETSI EMTEL,
NENA, IEEE, EENA, etc.

   (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 further review required.

   (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.

No specific concerns about this document.  No known IPR has been filed nor
discussed.

   (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?

While there has been some past controversy around some of the exact wording
in this document, there is overall wg consensus that this document - in its
present form - should be published. The WG as a whole has been working on
the document.
The last remaining issue was a discussion titled ŒApplicability Statement¹.
Text was submitted and rejected by the WG.  See:
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ecrit/current/msg06434.html

   (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 known threats for an appeal.

   (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.

One reference is wrongly identified with id-nits as informational, it¹s
actually Standards Track, hence we ignored this idnits warning.  All other
idnits have been resolved.  There is one reference that points to an old SIP
document (draft-ietf-sip-location-conveyance-13).  This will be changed to
point to the current sipcore document with the next version.

   (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 are split into Informative and Normative.

   (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?

No IANA considerations for this document are required.

   (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 is a BCP, no protocol validation required.

   (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
             Relevant content can frequently be found in the abstract
             and/or introduction of the document.  If not, this may be
             an indication that there are deficiencies in the abstract
             or introduction.

³This document describes how access networks, SIP user agents, proxy
servers and PSAPs support emergency calling, as outlined in
[I-D.ietf-ecrit-framework], which is designed to complement the present
document in section headings, numbering and content.  This BCP succinctly
describes the requirements of end devices and applications, access networks
(including enterprise access networks), service providers and PSAPs to
achieve globally interoperable emergency calling on the Internet.

This document also defines requirements for "Intermediate" devices which
exist between end devices or applications and the access network.  For
example, a home router is an "Intermediate" device.²

---

From: Ted Hardie <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2009 16:43:53 +0200

At 6:26 AM -0700 7/28/09, Marc Linsner wrote:
>While there has been some past controversy around some of the exact wording in this document, there is overall wg consensus that this document - in its present form - should be published. The WG as a whole has been working on the document.
>The last remaining issue was a discussion titled 'Applicability Statement'.  Text was submitted and rejected by the WG.  See: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ecrit/current/msg06434.html>http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ecrit/current/msg06434.html

>No known threats for an appeal.

I think it would be valuable to add the history of requests for
liaison and the liaisons from 3gpp here.  I understand that the
current liaison is not very useful, since it simply promises and
eventual technical comment, but I think the history here
needs to be said.

			thanks,
				Ted

---

From: "Brian Rosen" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2009 10:52:42 -0400

I'm not at all unhappy with adding the requests for review by 3GPP. Far from
it.  I wondered if there was any implication of putting your note under the
part that says "threat of appeal"?

Brian

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf
> Of Ted Hardie
> Sent: Tuesday, July 28, 2009 10:44 AM
> To: Marc Linsner; 'ecrit'
> Subject: Re: [Ecrit] Proto for PhoneBCP
> 
> >While there has been some past controversy around some of the exact
> wording in this document, there is overall wg consensus that this
> document - in its present form - should be published. The WG as a whole
> has been working on the document.
> >The last remaining issue was a discussion titled 'Applicability
> Statement'.  Text was submitted and rejected by the WG.  See:
> <http://www.ietf.org/mail-
> archive/web/ecrit/current/msg06434.html>http://www.ietf.org/mail-
> archive/web/ecrit/current/msg06434.html
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Ecrit mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ecrit

---

From: "James M. Polk" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2009 10:25:02 -0500

At 09:43 AM 7/28/2009, Ted Hardie wrote:
> >While there has been some past controversy around some of the 
> exact wording in this document, there is overall wg consensus that 
> this document - in its present form - should be published. The WG 
> as a whole has been working on the document.
> <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ecrit/current/msg06434.html>http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ecrit/current/msg06434.html
>

+1

---

From: Ted Hardie <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2009 17:39:19 +0200

>part that says "threat of appeal"?

It was meant to be a comment related to both sections I quoted,
not specific to "threat of appeal".

Ted