An Authorization Information Format (AIF) for Authentication and Authorization for Constrained Environments (ACE)
draft-ietf-ace-aif-07

[Ballot comment]
Thank you for the work on this document

Many thanks to Marco Tiloca for his ART ART review: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/art/P7tlVXlIMMJJ8cc9hBA1jMOqVZY/, to Alexey Melnikov for his media-type review: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/media-types/rxzyZhpOLwH1UuueYwlMSENSOak/, and to Carsten for addressing them.

Francesca

[Ballot comment]
I support Robert's DISCUSS.

The shepherd writeup seems to have been done in something of a hurry, and I'd like to see that cleaned up if possible before publication.  Specifically: The first question doesn't contain a complete answer.  The Document Quality section is not answered at all.  "No" is a curious answer to #13; it's saying references are not split into "Normative" and "Informative"?  The answer to #14 is similarly curious.  The answer to #18 is confusing; it appears to be a registry snapshot, not a confirmation that any new registries are properly defined.  Lastly, #20 was not answered.

The Abstract seems to suggest very broad application.  Should there be a sentence in there that indicates the context of the work (specifically, ACE)?

In Section 5.1, "Required Parameters" shouldn't be "none", but rather "N/A"; see Section 5.6 of RFC 6838 for more information.

The second paragraph of Section 6 (about default-deny) strikes me as something that should really be up in Section 2 or Section 3; it's something fundamental and ought to be called out up front.

[Ballot comment]
The shepherd writeup seems to have been done in something of a hurry, and I'd like to see that cleaned up if possible before publication.  Specifically: The first question doesn't contain a complete answer.  The Document Quality section is not answered at all.  "No" is a curious answer to #13; it's saying references are not split into "Normative" and "Informative"?  The answer to #14 is similarly curious.  The answer to #18 is confusing; it appears to be a registry snapshot, not a confirmation that any new registries are properly defined.  Lastly, #20 was not answered.

The Abstract seems to suggest very broad application.  Should there be a sentence in there that indicates the context of the work (specifically, ACE)?

In Section 5.1, "Required Parameters" shouldn't be "none", but rather "N/A"; see Section 5.6 of RFC 6838 for more information.

The second paragraph of Section 6 (about default-deny) strikes me as something that should really be up in Section 2 or Section 3; it's something fundamental and ought to be called out up front.

[Ballot comment]
** Section 5.2. 
  The registration policy is Specification required [RFC8126].  The
  designated expert will engage with the submitter to ascertain the
  requirements of this document are addressed.

To help the DE, is there a way to be clearer on what requirements need to be satisfied?  Is it the bulleted list in the SecCons?  Section 4?

** Section 6. I was under the impression that AIF didn’t have an explicit requirement to use CoAP. For example, draft-ietf-ace-mqtt-tls-profile appears to use the information model but isn’t restricted to CoAP.  Therefore, is it more accurate to say:

OLD
The security considerations of [RFC7252] apply

NEW
When AIF is used with CoAP, the security considerations of [RFC7252] apply.

[Ballot comment]
Thank you for the work put into this document.

Please find below some blocking DISCUSS points (easy to address), some non-blocking COMMENT points (but replies would be appreciated even if only for my own education), and some nits.

Special thanks to Loganaden Velvindron for the shepherd's write-up even if there is no justification for the intended status and little is written about WG consensus beyond "no objections".

I hope that this helps to improve the document,

Regards,

-éric

# COMMENTS

I like when "internet of things" is used without its "IoT" acronym ;)

## Abstract

In "This specification provides a generic information model and format" should this rather be "This specification provides a generic information and a data models" ?

## Section 2

Suggestion: to avoid the reader to stop wondering at figure 1, please introduce "Toid" and "Tperm" before the figure 1.

## Section 2.3

I took me several reading and parsing of this section to understand the need and the specification of "dynamic-GET". May I suggest a rewrite about: the issue that this section wants to address, be specific that this doc define "dynamic methods" (not defined anywhere else) ? See also Rob's comment.

## Section 3

In the first paragraph, should the plural form be used for 'information model' ? As two of them are defined before.

[Ballot discuss]
Hopefully an easy one to fix or clarify:

  *  The set of numbers is converted into a single number REST-method-
      set by taking each number to the power of two and computing the
      inclusive OR of the binary representations of all the power
      values.

I just wanted to check that this is expressed the right way round?  I read "taking each number to power of two" as meaning taking the square of each method number.  Whereas, I would have assumed that what you mean is "two to the power of each method number", i.e., each REST method is indicated by a binary bit position in a potentially 64 bit number?

E.g., a/led should be 2^0 | 2^2 = 5

[Ballot comment]
  For a method X, the presence of a Dynamic-X permission means that the
  subject holds permission to exercise the method X on resources that
  have been returned in a 2.01 (201) response by a Location-indicating
  mechanism to a request that the subject made to the resource listed
  (/a/make-coffee in the example shown in Table 2, which might return
  the location of a resource that allows GET to find out about the
  status and DELETE to cancel the coffee-making operation).

It might be helpful to indicate that 2.01 means "created" (I had to look it up), and perhaps expand "which might return the location of a resource" to "which might return the location of a coffee machine resource"

[Ballot comment]
The IANA review of this document seems to not have concluded yet.

Found terminology that should be reviewed for inclusivity; see
https://www.rfc-editor.org/part2/#inclusive_language for background and more
guidance:

* Term "traditionally"; alternatives might be "classic", "classical",
  "common", "conventional", "customary", "fixed", "habitual", "historic",
  "long-established", "popular", "prescribed", "regular", "rooted",
  "time-honored", "universal", "widely used", "widespread".

Thanks to David Schinazi for their General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) review
(https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gen-art/_BxkOEZJVOgcLQdyMj3dV0NYRB0).

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All comments below are about very minor potential issues that you may choose to
address in some way - or ignore - as you see fit. Some were flagged by
automated tools (via https://github.com/larseggert/ietf-reviewtool), so there
will likely be some false positives. There is no need to let me know what you
did with these suggestions.

Section 2.2. , paragraph 3, nit:
-    conditionalized access based on state outside the identification of
-              ----

Section 1. , paragraph 3, nit:
> structure that can be used for many different applications and as a specific
>                                ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Consider using "many".

Section 1.1. , paragraph 4, nit:
> ically secured (or transmitted in a secure way). This section discusses the i
>                                ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Consider replacing this phrase with the adverb "securely" to avoid wordiness.

Section 2. , paragraph 3, nit:
> identified (e.g., as part of the armor around it). The generic model of such
>                              ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Consider using "the surrounding armor".

(Via drafts-lastcall@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

The IANA Functions Operator has completed its review of draft-ietf-ace-aif-05. If any part of this review is inaccurate, please let us know.

The IANA Functions Operator understands that, upon approval of this document, there are three actions which we must complete.

First, in the application space of the Media Types registry located at:

https://www.iana.org/assignments/media-types/

two new registrations are to be made as follows:

Name: aif+cbor
Template: [ TBD-at-Registration ]
Reference: [ RFC-to-be; Section 4 ]

Name: aif+json
Template: [ TBD-at-Registration ]
Reference: [ RFC-to-be; Section 4 ]

Second, a new registry is to be created called the Sub-Parameter Registry for application/aif+cbor and application/aif+json. The new registry will be managed via Specification Required as defined in RFC8126. The new registry will be located on the MIME Media Type Sub-Parameter Registries registry page located at:

https://www.iana.org/assignments/media-type-sub-parameters/

There are initial registrations in the new registry as follows:

+===========+=================+=====================+==============+
| Parameter | name | Description/ | Reference |
| | | Specification | |
+===========+=================+=====================+==============+
| Toid | local-part | local-part of URI | [ RFC-to-be ]|
+-----------+-----------------+---------------------+--------------+
| Tperm | REST-method-set | set of REST methods |[ RFC-to-be ] |
| | | represented | |
+-----------+-----------------+---------------------+--------------+

Third, in the CoAP Content-Formats registry on the Constrained RESTful Environments (CoRE) Parameters registry page located at:

https://www.iana.org/assignments/core-parameters/

two new registrations are to be made as follows:

Media Type: application/aif+cbor
Econding:
ID: [ TBD-at-Registration ]
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

Media Type: application/aif+json
Econding:
ID: [ TBD-at-Registration ]
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

As this document requests registrations in an Expert Review or Specification Required (see RFC 8126) registry, we will initiate the required Expert Review via a separate request. This review must be completed before the document's IANA state can be changed to "IANA OK."

The IANA Functions Operator understands that these are the only actions required to be completed upon approval of this document.

Note:  The actions requested in this document will not be completed until the document has been approved for publication as an RFC. This message is meant only to confirm the list of actions that will be performed.

Thank you,

Sabrina Tanamal
Lead IANA Services Specialist

As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document
Shepherd Write-Up. Changes are expected over time.

This version is dated 1 November 2019.

(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?

Proposed Standard
(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:
This specification provides a generic information model  and format
  for representing such authorization information (Information about which entities are authorized to perform what
  operations), as well as two
  variants of a specific instantiation of that format for use with REST
  resources identified by URI path.



Working Group Summary:

No objections at the WG level to move this further.
Document Quality:




Who is the Document Shepherd?
Loganaden Velvindron

Who is the Responsible Area Director?
Benjamin Kaduk
(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.
A number of small changes were requested for the security section but the overall document is in good shape.
(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed?
None
(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.
CDDL was reviewed by WG members.

(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?
Whole Working  Group
(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.)
None
(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.
None
(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.
A review would be needed for the media-type.
Please see: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/media-types/sl2NFBvcaKtPH4LL7cCpTkwjy5E/
(13) Have all references within this document been identified as either normative or informative?
No.

draft-ietf-httpbis-semantics needs to be referenced and it is in AUTH-48 state.

(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

(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 8126).
Content Format, Media type, Registries
I reviewed the IANA consideration section and it is consistent. The protocol extensions are associated with the
appropriate reservations in IANA registries and they have been clearly identified.

(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.
+===========+=================+=====================+===========+
  | Parameter | name            | Description/        | Reference |
  |          |                | Specification      |          |
  +===========+=================+=====================+===========+
  | Toid      | local-part      | local-part of URI  | RFC XXXX  |
  +-----------+-----------------+---------------------+-----------+
  | Tperm    | REST-method-set | set of REST methods | RFC XXXX  |
  |          |                | represented        |          |
  +-----------+-----------------+---------------------+-----------+

(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, YANG modules, etc.
This tool was used:
https://github.com/anweiss/cddl
(20) If the document contains a YANG module, has the module been checked with any of the recommended validation tools (https://trac.ietf.org/trac/ops/wiki/yang-review-tools) 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 RFC8342?

The following Last Call announcement was sent out (ends 2022-02-28):

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC: ace-chairs@ietf.org, ace@ietf.org, draft-ietf-ace-aif@ietf.org, kaduk@mit.edu, loganaden@gmail.com
Reply-To: last-call@ietf.org
Sender:
Subject: Last Call:  (An Authorization Information Format (AIF) for ACE) to Proposed Standard


The IESG has received a request from the Authentication and Authorization for
Constrained Environments WG (ace) to consider the following document: - 'An
Authorization Information Format (AIF) for ACE'
  as Proposed Standard

The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits final
comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the
last-call@ietf.org mailing lists by 2022-02-28. Exceptionally, comments may
be sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the beginning
of the Subject line to allow automated sorting.

Abstract


  Information about which entities are authorized to perform what
  operations on which constituents of other entities is a crucial
  component of producing an overall system that is secure.  Conveying
  precise authorization information is especially critical in highly
  automated systems with large numbers of entities, such as the
  "Internet of Things".

  This specification provides a generic information model and format
  for representing such authorization information, as well as two
  variants of a specific instantiation of that format for use with REST
  resources identified by URI path.




The file can be obtained via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ace-aif/



No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D.

As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document
Shepherd Write-Up. Changes are expected over time.

This version is dated 1 November 2019.

(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
(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:

  Constrained Devices as they are used in the "Internet of Things" need
  security.  One important element of this security is that devices in
  the Internet of Things need to be able to decide which operations
  requested of them should be considered authorized, need to ascertain
  that the authorization to request the operation does apply to the
  actual requester, and need to ascertain that other devices they place
  requests on are the ones they intended.



Working Group Summary:

No objections at the WG level to move this further.
Document Quality:




Who is the Document Shepherd?
Loganaden Velvindron

Who is the Responsible Area Director?
Benjamin Kaduk
(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.
A number of small changes were requested for the security section.

(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed?
None
(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.
CDDL

(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?
Whole Working  Group
(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.)
None
(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.
None
(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.
CDDL
(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

(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 8126).
Content Format, Media type, Registries
(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.

(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, YANG modules, etc.
CDDL
(20) If the document contains a YANG module, has the module been checked with any of the recommended validation tools (https://trac.ietf.org/trac/ops/wiki/yang-review-tools) 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 RFC8342?

As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document
Shepherd Write-Up. Changes are expected over time.

This version is dated 1 November 2019.

(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
(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:

  Constrained Devices as they are used in the "Internet of Things" need
  security.  One important element of this security is that devices in
  the Internet of Things need to be able to decide which operations
  requested of them should be considered authorized, need to ascertain
  that the authorization to request the operation does apply to the
  actual requester, and need to ascertain that other devices they place
  requests on are the ones they intended.



Working Group Summary:

No objections at the WG level to move this further.
Document Quality:




Who is the Document Shepherd?
Loganaden Velvindron

Who is the Responsible Area Director?
Benjamin Kaduk
(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.
A number of small changes were requested for the security section.

(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed?
None
(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.
CDDL

(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?
Whole Working  Group
(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.)
None
(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.
None
(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.
CDDL
(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

(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 8126).
Content Format, Media type, Registries
(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.

(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, YANG modules, etc.
CDDL
(20) If the document contains a YANG module, has the module been checked with any of the recommended validation tools (https://trac.ietf.org/trac/ops/wiki/yang-review-tools) 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 RFC8342?

As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document
Shepherd Write-Up. Changes are expected over time.

This version is dated 1 November 2019.

(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?

(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:

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?

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, YANG 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?

Personnel:

Who is the Document Shepherd? Who is the Responsible Area Director?

(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.

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

(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.

(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.

(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?

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

(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?

(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.)

(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.

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

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

(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?

(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.

(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.

(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 8126).

(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.

(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, YANG modules, etc.

(20) If the document contains a YANG module, has the module been checked with any of the recommended validation tools (https://trac.ietf.org/trac/ops/wiki/yang-review-tools) 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 RFC8342?