Subject: [decade] #1: Document Shepherd Write-UP

From: "decade issue tracker" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 25 Dec 2011 18:35:49 -0000

#1: Document Shepherd Write-UP

 The DECADE WG I-D mentioned below is ready for IESG review and approval.
 Please find below the document shepherd write-up.

 I-D: DECADE Requirements
      <draft-ietf-decade-reqs-05>

 /Akbar

 ====================================================================

   (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?

 Document shepherd: Akbar Rahman (as per request from DECADE chairs).
 Yes, I have personally reviewed this version of the document and I believe
 it is
 ready for IESG review and 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 had extensive reviews from both key and other WG members.
 I am satisfied with the depth and breadth of the reviews.

   (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?

 I do not have concerns.  The document is covering DECADE requirements and
 the WG has had quite extensive reviews of the document.

   (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.

 I do not have any specific concerns at this time regarding this document.
 The document has been presented and discussed adequately in previous WG
 meetings and on the mailing list.

 I am NOT aware of any IPR disclosures related to this document.

   (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?

 There is good concurrence among active participants on the subject.
 I believe the majority of the WG understands the document and do not
 object.

   (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 threats of appeal or extreme discontent have been expressed
 regarding this I-D.

   (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?

 Yes. I have run the I-D through the ID nits tool and found no major
 issues.
 The only minor warning that I received was regarding version numbers
 of some informative references (see below).  I believe these can be
 fixed when any IESG comments are addressed.

   == Outdated reference: A later version (-04) exists of
      draft-ietf-decade-problem-statement-03

   == Outdated reference: A later version (-04) exists of
      draft-ietf-decade-arch-02

   (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 normative and informative sections.
 The normative references are published RFCs.

   (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?

 Yes, I have verified the IANA Considerations Section.  There are no
 IANA impacts as this is a Requirements document

   (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?

 Not applicable.

   (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 target of DECoupled Application Data Enroute (DECADE) is to
 provide an open and standard in-network storage system for
 applications, primarily P2P (peer-to-peer) applications, to store,
 retrieve and manage their data.  This draft enumerates and explains
 requirements, not only for storage and retrieval, but also for data
 management, access control and resource control, that should be
 considered during the design and implementation of a DECADE system.
 These are requirements on the entire system; some of the requirements
 may eventually be implemented by an existing protocol with/without
 some extensions (e.g., a protocol used to read and write data from
 the storage system).  The requirements in this document are intended
 to ensure that the DECADE architecture includes all of the desired
 functionality for intended applications.

      Working Group Summary
         Was there anything in WG process that is worth noting? For
         example, was there controversy about particular points or
         were there decisions where the consensus was particularly
         rough?

 There is support in the WG to advance this work. There has not been any
 major controversy.

      Document Quality
         Are there existing implementations of the protocol? Have a
         significant number of vendors indicated their plan to
         implement the specification?

 This is a requirements document for the DECADE protocol.  There is no
 DECADE protocol I-D specified yet.  So there is no existing
 implementations
 of DECADE.  However, there have been some early experimental work by
 the research community in the space of DECADE type in-network storage
 as, for example, captured by:

 http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-decade-integration-example/

-- 
----------------------------+--------------------------------------
 Reporter:  akbar.rahman@…  |      Owner:  draft-ietf-decade-reqs@…
     Type:  task            |     Status:  new
 Priority:  minor           |  Milestone:
Component:  reqs            |    Version:
 Severity:  -               |   Keywords:
----------------------------+--------------------------------------

Ticket URL: <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/decade/trac/ticket/1>
decade <http://tools.ietf.org/decade/>