# Document Shepherd Write-Up for Individual Documents
*This version is dated 4 July 2022.*
Thank you for your service as a document shepherd. Among the responsibilities is
answering the questions in this write-up to give helpful context to Last Call
and Internet Engineering Steering Group ([IESG][1]) reviewers, and your
diligence in completing it is appreciated. The full role of the shepherd is
further described in [RFC 4858][2]. You will need the cooperation of the authors
and editors to complete these checks.
Note that some numbered items contain multiple related questions; please be sure
to answer all of them.
## Document History
1. Was the document considered in any WG, and if so, why was it not adopted as a
work item there?
This document was considered by the TLS WG. It was not adopted, much like
draft-josefsson-pkix-textual that was considered but not adopted by PKIX,
because the pem file formats to share are not really part of the protocol per
se.
2. Was there controversy about particular points that caused the WG to not adopt
the document?
There was zero controversy about this I-D.
3. 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 publicly available.)
No threat of appeal has been detected - and I would know ;)
4. For protocol documents, are there existing implementations of the contents of
the document? Have a significant number of potential implementers indicated
plans to implement? Are any existing implementations reported somewhere,
either in the document itself (as [RFC 7942][3] recommends) or elsewhere
(where)?
Here’s a list from Stephen’s slides @ IETF 124:
Produced/consumed by OpenSSL ECH feature branch
– https://github.com/openssl/openssl/tree/feature/ech
Bash script to produce using BoringSSL’s `bssl’:
–
https://github.com/defo-project/ech-dev-utils/blob/nginx-pr/scripts/bssl2pem.sh
lighttpd: Jan 2025, just OpenSSL, partly done by me, partly by maintainer
–
https://github.com/lighttpd/lighttpd1.4/commit/29da0e9861638e21c1cebdc354c68c347eaab0b2
and subsequent PRs
freenginx: Sep 2025, same 3 libraries, implementation by maintainer, not me
– https://freenginx.org/ Part of 1.29.2 release 2025-09-23
apache2 httpd: Sep 2025, just OpenSSL, upstreamed, not released
–
https://github.com/apache/httpd/commit/0c9cd095ce9081fd225f0da7787419e80de7c701
haproxy: Oct 2025, just OpenSSL, merged upstream (2025-10-30)
– https://github.com/haproxy/haproxy/issues/1924#issuecomment-3438011449
–
https://github.com/haproxy/haproxy/commit/dba4fd248a13fb0f3135619b14e3cf20b6674d10
part of haproxy 3.3-dev11
nginx: PR under discussion, BoringSSL or Op
## Additional Reviews
5. Do the contents of this document closely interact with technologies in other
IETF working groups or external organizations, and would it therefore benefit
from their review? Have those reviews occurred? If yes, describe which
reviews took place.
No.
6. Describe how the document meets any required formal expert review criteria,
such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.
N/A
7. If the document contains a YANG module, has the final version of the module
been checked with any of the [recommended validation tools][4] for syntax and
formatting validation? If there are any resulting errors or warnings, what is
the justification for not fixing them at this time? Does the YANG module
comply with the Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA) as specified
in [RFC 8342][5]?
N/A
8. Describe reviews and automated checks performed to validate sections of the
final version of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code,
BNF rules, MIB definitions, CBOR's CDDL, etc.
While there is no formal language to verify, I did verify that the examples
provided in ❡3 is in fact a PrivateKeyInfo.
## Document Shepherd Checks
9. Based on the shepherd's review of the document, is it their opinion that this
document is needed, clearly written, complete, correctly designed, and ready
to be handed off to the responsible Area Director?
This document is r-e-a-d-y!
10. Several IETF Areas have assembled [lists of common issues that their
reviewers encounter][6]. For which areas have such issues been identified
and addressed? For which does this still need to happen in subsequent
reviews?
N/A
11. What type of RFC publication is being requested on the IETF stream ([Best
Current Practice][12], [Proposed Standard, Internet Standard][13],
[Informational, Experimental or Historic][14])? Why is this the proper type
of RFC? Do all Datatracker state attributes correctly reflect this intent?
The document is intended for standard track. This is appropriate because you
do exchange this format. Also, it matches what was done for RFC 7468.
12. Have reasonable efforts been made to remind all authors of the intellectual
property rights (IPR) disclosure obligations described in [BCP 79][7]? To
the best of your knowledge, have all required disclosures been filed? If
not, explain why. If yes, summarize any relevant discussion, including links
to publicly-available messages when applicable.
I have confirmed with the authors that they have made the necessary disclosures.
13. Has each author, editor, and contributor shown their willingness to be
listed as such? If the total number of authors and editors on the front page
is greater than five, please provide a justification.
I have confirmed with the author that they are willing to be listed as such.
14. Document any remaining I-D nits in this document. Simply running the [idnits
tool][8] is not enough; please review the ["Content Guidelines" on
authors.ietf.org][15]. (Also note that the current idnits tool generates
some incorrect warnings; a rewrite is underway.)
No I-D nits.
15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the [IESG
Statement on Normative and Informative References][16].
In version -10, I thought 7468 and 9460 should be informational. Stephen made
that change in -11 and now I think the I-D has the references categorized
correctly. I am also not willing to die on this hill so if the IESG has other
ideas - cool.
16. List any normative references that are not freely available to anyone. Did
the community have sufficient access to review any such normative
references?
N/A
17. Are there any normative downward references (see [RFC 3967][9] and [BCP
97][10]) that are not already listed in the [DOWNREF registry][17]? If so,
list them.
No.
18. Are there normative references to documents that are not ready to be
submitted to the IESG for publication or are otherwise in an unclear state?
If so, what is the plan for their completion?
I-D.ietf-tls-esni is a normative reference. As of 20251203, it is in AUTH48.
19. Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? If
so, does the Datatracker metadata correctly reflect this and are those RFCs
listed on the title page, in the abstract, and discussed in the
introduction? If not, explain why and point to the part of the document
where the relationship of this document to these other RFCs is discussed.
No.
20. 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 aspects of the document requiring IANA assignments are
associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm
that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm
that each newly created IANA registry specifies its initial contents,
allocations procedures, and a reasonable name (see [RFC 8126][11]).
I reviewed it. There are no actions and that is, in my opinion, correct.
21. List any new IANA registries that require Designated Expert Review for
future allocations. Are the instructions to the Designated Expert clear?
Please include suggestions of designated experts, if appropriate.
N/A
[1]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/
[2]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4858.html
[3]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7942.html
[4]: https://wiki.ietf.org/group/ops/yang-review-tools
[5]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8342.html
[6]: https://wiki.ietf.org/group/iesg/ExpertTopics
[7]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp79
[8]: https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/
[9]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3967.html
[10]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp97
[11]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8126.html
[12]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-5
[13]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.1
[14]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.2
[15]: https://authors.ietf.org/en/content-guidelines-overview
[16]:
https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/normative-informative-references/
[17]: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/downref/