Shepherd writeup
rfc7832-05

(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?

Informational

This draft documents a number of use-cases that form the motivation for the technical specifications in abfab, so informational is the right type.

(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

Federated identity is typically associated with Web-based services at
present, but there is growing interest in its application in non Web-
based contexts.  The goal of this document is to document a selection
of the wide variety of these contexts whose user experience could be
improved through the use of technologies based on the ABFAB
architecture and specifications.


Working Group Summary

There has been some WG discussion around the Telecoms use case and the extent to which it should figure in this draft. The current text is WG consensus on that.

Document Quality

Given that this is a use-cases document there are no implementation plans. The contributors of use-cases have been credited. The document has been presented on a number of occasions which have led to inclusion of the Plasma and Telecoms use cases. The WGLC did not result in any voicing of discent, nor in consent for that matter. But that is probably not a problem given earlier on list and at meeting discussions and the nature of the document.

Personnel

Document Shepherd: Klaas Wierenga
AD: Stephen Farrell

(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.

I have read the document and checked for consistency with rest of the abfab work. Checked the ID nits and verified with the author the IPR status.

(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or
breadth of the reviews that have been performed?  

No

(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.

No

(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.

None

(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.

Yes

(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document?
If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR
disclosures.

No

(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?   

The nature of the document (use cases) is such that not all parts appeal equally to everyone in the WG. I do believe that the presented use cases are supported by the WG as valid use cases.

(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.

Informational references to RFC2060 and 2821 are to obsolete RFCs and need to be updated to resp. RFCs 3501 and 3521. Draft-freeman-plasma-requirements is now called 
draft-freeman-message-access-control-req.

(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review
criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.

N/A

(13) Have all references within this document been identified as
either normative or informative?

Yes

(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?

Yes, to I-D.lear-abfab-arch. This document is hopefully ready for WGLC by the next IETF.

(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. 

This is not a standards track document, i.e. N/A?

(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).

N/A

(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.

N/A

(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.

N/A
Back