Subject: [Ecrit] Proto for Framework....

From: Marc Linsner <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2009 15:25:59 +0200

Proto for draft-ietf-ecrit-framework

http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ecrit-framework-10

   (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 several of it¹s
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.

   (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.

There are no ID-NITs in this document.  There is one informative 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].

This is a framework document, therefore all references are informative.

   (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.

³The IETF has standardized various aspects of placing emergency calls. This
document describes how all of those component parts are used to support
emergency calls from citizens and visitors to authorities.²

---

From: "Brian Rosen" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2009 09:36:47 -0400

Framework is Informational, not BCP (1,j)

From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of
Marc Linsner
Sent: Tuesday, July 28, 2009 9:26 AM
To: 'ecrit'
Subject: [Ecrit] Proto for Framework....

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

          Technical Summary

"The IETF has standardized various aspects of placing emergency calls. This
document describes how all of those component parts are used to support
emergency calls from citizens and visitors to authorities."