Re: [Ecrit] PROTO Writeup for draft-ietf-ecrit-specifying-holes-00.txt

["Tschofenig, Hannes (NSN - FI/Espoo)" <[e-mail]>]

--- an update based on the recent draft submission. 


PROTO WRITEUP for draft-ietf-ecrit-specifying-holes-01.txt
==========================================================

   (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 is Hannes Tschofenig.
      The document is ready for publications and I have reviewed the 
      document personally.

   (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 is an informative clarification on how to 
      describes holes in service boundaries. 

	  Carl Reed from the OGC has performed a review of the 
	  document. 

	  There are no concerns about the depth and the 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?
          
      The document contains XML snippets and an XML instance document. 
	  The XML snippets make use of the description provided in 
	
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-geopriv-pdif-lo-profile-1
3.txt
	  and the XML instance document is based on a draft version of
the 
	  LoST synchronization protocol. The text related to the example
indicates 
      that it just illustrative purposes.	  

   (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.

      There are no concerns. 
	  
   (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 consensus behind this 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.)
          
      There are no concerns with this document. 

   (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.

      The document does not contain nits. 

   (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].

     The document has references split into normative and 
     informative references. 
     
   (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?

   An IANA consideration section exists but there are not actions for 
   IANA since 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?

   The document contains XML snippets taken from 
 
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-geopriv-pdif-lo-profile-1
3.txt
   and an XML instance document related to a not yet finished XML based 
   protocol:
   http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ecrit-lost-sync-00.txt
   The text around the example indicates that it may not validate. 
   
   (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. 


Document Announcement Write-Up for "Specifying Holes in LoST Service
Boundaries" 
(draft-ietf-ecrit-specifying-holes-01.txt)

   Technical Summary

   The LoST protocol maps location and service identifiers to Uniform
   Resource Identifiers (URIs). LoST may additionally return 
   a so-called service boundary, i.e., a region within which all
locations 
   map to the same service URI or set of URIs for a given service.
	  
   The geodetic boundary is a polygon made up of sets of
   geodetic coordinates specifying an enclosed area. In some
   circumstances an area enclosed by a polygon, also known as an
   exterior polygon, may contain exception areas, or holes, that for the
   same service must yield a different destination to that described by
   the larger area.  
   
   This document describes how holes should be specified in service
boundaries 
   defined using a GML encoding for the polygons and their internal
elements (holes). 
 

   Working Group Summary

      There is consensus in the WG to publish this document.

   Document Quality

      The document has been reviewed by ECRIT working group members
      and feedback was provided by Carl Reed from the OGC.
      
   Personnel

     Hannes Tschofenig is the document shepherd for this document.  
 

>-----Original Message-----
>From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] 
>On Behalf Of ext Tschofenig, Hannes (NSN - FI/Espoo)
>Sent: 12 October, 2008 22:44
>To: ECRIT
>Subject: [Ecrit] PROTO Writeup for 
>draft-ietf-ecrit-specifying-holes-00.txt
>
>Here is a proposal for the PROTO writeup we are going to 
>submit sometime next week for 
>http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ecrit-specifying
>-holes-00
>.txt
>
>
>PROTO WRITEUP for draft-ietf-ecrit-specifying-holes-00.txt
>==========================================================
>
>   (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 is Hannes Tschofenig.
>      The document is ready for publications and I have reviewed the 
>      document personally.
>
>   (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 is an informative clarification on how to 
>      describes holes in service boundaries. 
>
>	  Carl Reed from the OGC has performed a review of the 
>	  document. 
>
>	  There are no concerns about the depth and the 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?
>          
>      The document contains XML snippets and an XML instance document. 
>	  The XML snippets make use of the description provided in 
>	
>http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-geopriv-pdif-lo-
>profile-1
>3.txt
>	  and the XML instance document is based on a draft 
>version of the 
>	  LoST synchronization protocol. As such, the syntaxt 
>might change. 
>
>   (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.
>
>      There are no concerns. 
>	  
>   (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 consensus behind this 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.)
>          
>      There are no concerns with this document. 
>
>   (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.
>
>      The document does not contain nits. 
>
>   (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].
>
>     The document has references split into normative and 
>     informative references. 
>     
>   (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?
>
>   An IANA consideration section exists but there are not actions for 
>   IANA since 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?
>
>   The document contains XML snippets taken from 
> 
>http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-geopriv-pdif-lo-
>profile-1
>3.txt
>   and an XML instance document related to a not yet finished 
>XML based 
>   protocol (as an example only):
>   
>http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ecrit-lost-sync-00.txt
>   
>   
>   (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. 
>
>
>Document Announcement Write-Up for "Specifying Holes in LoST 
>Service Boundaries" 
>(draft-ietf-ecrit-specifying-holes-00.txt)
>
>   Technical Summary
>
>   The LoST protocol maps location and service identifiers to Uniform
>   Resource Identifiers (URIs). LoST may additionally return 
>   a so-called service boundary, i.e., a region within which 
>all locations 
>   map to the same service URI or set of URIs for a given service.
>	  
>   The geodetic boundary is a polygon made up of sets of
>   geodetic coordinates specifying an enclosed area. In some
>   circumstances an area enclosed by a polygon, also known as an
>   exterior polygon, may contain exception areas, or holes, 
>that for the
>   same service must yield a different destination to that described by
>   the larger area.  
>   
>   This document describes how holes should be specified in 
>service boundaries 
>   defined using a GML encoding for the polygons and their 
>internal elements (holes). 
> 
>
>   Working Group Summary
>
>      There is consensus in the WG to publish this document.
>
>   Document Quality
>
>      The document has been reviewed by ECRIT working group members
>      and feedback was provided by Carl Reed from the OGC.
>      
>   Personnel
>
>     Hannes Tschofenig is the document shepherd for this document.  
>_______________________________________________
>Ecrit mailing list
>[e-mail]
>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ecrit
>
_______________________________________________
Ecrit mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ecrit