[ietf-provreg] RFC4310bis document writeup

[Olafur Gudmundsson <ogud@ogud.com>]

(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?

Olafur Gudmndsson, agreed to take this on after the document entered 
IETF last call.

  (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?

I have reviewed the document starting with the version LC 03
and tried to assert the disposition of the discussion on the document
on the provreg and ietf mailing lists.  The document is now in version
07.

Note: I was active participant in discussion before becoming Document
Shepherd.

(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?

The document has been extensively discussed and  had been reviewed by
a number of knowledgeable people. From EPP and DNSSEC perspectives
thus I have no concerns about the depth or quality of the reviews.

   (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.

Overall comments on the document:
This is a high quality document, with excellent editors who have done
a great job of corresponding with commenter and integrating comments
into the final version.

NO IPR.

  (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?

This document is not a product of a working group, the people that
   have participated in the discussions on the document seem to have
   come to an agreement that this is a good specification.
As this was not a product of a working group some people that actually
   work in this area did not know the discussion of updating RFC4310
   was taking place. These same people once they joined the discussion
   made significant contributions.
I have not been able to identify any "silent" group that may not
   grasp the content of this document.

   (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.)

None,

  (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?

There are few nits due to the ever changing boilerplates and tools not
being available when BP changes :-(.

I found one minor error in section 4.1. cites RFC3757 but should use the
document that obsoleted it, RFC4034.


   (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 split.
No down refs once the RFC3757 reference is updated to RFC4034.

   (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 section is clear.

  (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?

The XML code in the document passed my visual inspection and simple
XML syntax checker. I have confidence that the XML syntax is correct
but it would be useful if someone double checked.

Short history of Last call:

Version 03 posted
Last call issued:

Eduardo Duarte: Multiple DS and [in]active DS's
         Mailing list praticipants is not clear if this is
         needed and furthermore can not agree
         on what the meaning of "active" is.
	  --> not reflected in document

Bernie Hoensisen Version numbers needs to change
        -> accepted to reflect major changes in format

BH: Broken rem support should be dropped
        -> included in 04

Andrew Sullivan: Setting TTL
     -> not accepted not enough support

Multiple people: Multiple different MAXSIgLife statements
     -> move outside each DS and have this apply to whole set. 04
      (this forced the version number bump)

Version 04 posted

Version 05 added section on backwards compatibility and support of
both versions of the schema.

Version 06 number of clarity issues raised addressed no change in
content

Version 07 a nits pass









-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
List run by majordomo software.  For (Un-)subscription and similar details
send "help" to ietf-provreg-request@cafax.se