Subject: [decade] FW: Document Shepherd Write-Up for DECADE WG ID: draft-ietf-decade-reqs-05

From: "Rahman, Akbar" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 25 Dec 2011 13:09:58 -0500

FYI 

From: Rahman, Akbar 
Sent: Sunday, December 25, 2011 1:07 PM
To: David Harrington; [email-masked]
Cc: Songhaibin; Woundy, Richard
Subject: Document Shepherd Write-Up for DECADE WG ID:
draft-ietf-decade-reqs-05

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 <http://www.ietf.org/id-info/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? 
 
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/