The ALTO WG requests that the IESG consider publication of draft-ietf-alto-protocol-13. The document shepherd writeup is given below.
Enrico --- (1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? Why is this the proper type of RFC? Is this type of RFC indicated in the title page header? The document specifies a new protocol and as such is being submitted as a Proposed Standard on the Standards Track, as indicated in the title page header. (2) 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 Application-Layer Traffic Optimization (ALTO) Service provides network information (e.g., basic network location structure, preferences of network paths) with the goal of modifying network resource consumption patterns while maintaining or improving application performance. The basic information of ALTO is based on abstract maps of a network. These maps provide a simplified view, yet enough information about a network for applications to effectively utilize them. Additional services are built on top the maps. This document describes a protocol implementing the ALTO Service. Although the ALTO service would primarily be provided by the network operator (e.g., an ISP), content providers and third parties could also operate this service. Applications that could use this service are those that have a choice in connection endpoints. Examples of such applications are peer-to-peer (P2P) and content delivery networks. 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. 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? The specification process has been particularly long and articulated. The WG had to make many decisions -- the architectural ones reflected in the related requirements document -- that took time. However, quite broad consensus was reached on almost all of them. Document Quality: Are there existing implementations of the protocol? Have a significant number of vendors indicated their plan to implement the specification? Are there any reviewers that merit special mention as having done a thorough review, e.g., one that resulted in important changes or a conclusion that the document had no substantive issues? If there was a MIB Doctor, Media Type or other expert review, what was its course (briefly)? In the case of a Media Type review, on what date was the request posted? Implementations: three implementations with some interoperability were demostrated during a "running code show" organized at IETF80. Seven client and five server implementations were tested in an "interoperability event" at IETF81, with pretty good results (http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/alto/current/msg01181.html). A second interoperability event has been arranged for IETF85. Expert supervision: since the protocol, despite being developed in TSV, is an application level protocol, based on HTTP and following a REST-ful approach, Peter Saint-Andre (also former responsible AD for ALTO, before the WG was moved to TSV) was appointed as APPS expert and has supervised the specification process in its crucial phases. Other experts from APPS (Martin Thomson, Alexey Melnikov), SEC (Richard Barnes) and OPS (David Harrington, Benoit Claise) have at some point been involved and provided feedback on various aspects. Personnel: Who is the Document Shepherd? Who is the Responsible Area Director? Enrico Marocco is the document shepherd, Martin Stiemerling is the responsible AD. (3) Briefly describe the review of this document that was performed by the Document Shepherd. If this version of the document is not ready for publication, please explain why the document is being forwarded to the IESG. The document shepherd has followed the specification process closely, implementing a proof-of-concept client application himself (http://alto.tilab.com/alto-xkcd/). He has proofread the final version of the document and believes it is ready for publication. (4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed? Each and every word has been read by litteraly hundreds of eyes. However, the document shepherd believes that additional external reviews (e.g. apps-dir and/or gen-art) would be beneficial, esp. to spot areas in the document that may turn out unclear to the unexperienced reader. (5) Do portions of the document need review from a particular or from broader perspective, e.g., security, operational complexity, AAA, DNS, DHCP, XML, or internationalization? If so, describe the review that took place. The document specifies an HTTP-based application layer protocol, following the best practices generally referenced as REST-ful and requesting the registration of several media types. All these aspects have been approached under the supervision of APPS experts (Peter Saint-Andre, Martin Thomson, Richard Barnes, Alexey Melnikov) and should probably be re-checked for consistency. The document has also received a review from OPS perspective (from Benoit Claise). (6) Describe any specific concerns or issues that the Document Shepherd has 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. According to the document shepherd the document is good, all that could be removed has been removed. (7) Has each author confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR disclosures required for full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79 have already been filed. If not, explain why? The authors are not aware of any IPR on the document and believe that it is compliant with IETF copyright and IPR policy rules. (8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures. No IPR disclosure references this document. Two IPR disclosures (#1628 and #1718) were filed regarding proposed extensions to the protocol, but the WG decided not to integrate them in the base specs. (9) 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? Strong consensus. (10) 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 publicly available.) No. (11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this document. (See http://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be thorough. IDnits returns a bunch of warnings about missing references, one in an informative "ChangeLog" section whose removal will be discusse with the RFC Editor and the remaining caused by the square brakets used in the JSON code examples. IDnits also returns a downref error as it lists JSON specs (RFC 4627) in the normative section. Guidance on this is expected from the IESG, as, despite being an Invormative document, JSON is in fact a standard this protocol as well as most of today's web technologies are based on. To the best of my knowledge APPSAWG is fixing the incosistency, but unfortunately a proper 4627bis is not going to be published in time. (12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews. Media types are being nailed down under the supervision of the APPS tech advisor and with the help of APPS experts. See (2) and (5). (13) Have all references within this document been identified as either normative or informative? Yes. Please note the expection described in (11) to which the WG defers any decision to the IESG. (14) 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 plan for their completion? The document build up on JSON specs, de-facto standard despite being defined in an Informational RFC. A fix for such an incostincency is being worked on by APPSAWG. Pragmatically the WG does not see any issue with referencing such a document in the normative section. The process-wise decision is deferred to the IESG. (15) Are there downward normative references references (see RFC 3967)? If so, list these downward references to support the Area Director in the Last Call procedure. Two downrefs, one to IEEE Standard 754, supposedly compliant with RFC 3967, and on to RFC 4627 as described in (11) and (14). (16) Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? Are those RFCs listed on the title page header, listed in the abstract, and discussed in the introduction? If the RFCs are not listed in the Abstract and Introduction, explain why, and point to the part of the document where the relationship of this document to the other RFCs is discussed. If this information is not in the document, explain why the WG considers it unnecessary. No. (17) Describe the Document Shepherd's review of the IANA considerations section, especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the document. Confirm that all protocol extensions that the document makes are associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm that newly created IANA registries include a detailed specification of the initial contents for the registry, that allocations procedures for future registrations are defined, and a reasonable name for the new registry has been suggested (see RFC 5226). The document requests registration of ten media types and the creation of three registries. All IANA actions have been carefully ponderated, in accordance to guidelines in RFC 5226. (18) List any new IANA registries that require Expert Review for future allocations. Provide any public guidance that the IESG would find useful in selecting the IANA Experts for these new registries. The document defines three new registries: an ALTO Cost Type Registry, an ALTO Endpoint Property Registry and an ALTO Address Type Registry. This is the minimum set identified in the working group for achieving proper extensibility of the new protocol. (19) Describe reviews and automated checks performed by the Document Shepherd to validate sections of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc. No automated checks were required other than IDnits.
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
_______________________________________________ alto mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/alto
