# Document Shepherd Writeup
*This version is dated 8 April 2022.*
Thank you for your service as a document shepherd. Among the responsibilities is
answering the questions in this writeup 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], and informally. You will need the cooperation of
authors to complete these checks.
Note that some numbered items contain multiple related questions; please be sure
to answer all of them.
## Document History
1. Does the working group (WG) consensus represent the strong concurrence of a
few individuals, with others being silent, or did it reach broad agreement?
The Working Group reached broad agreement.
2. Was there controversy about particular points, or were there decisions where
the consensus was particularly rough?
There was some controversy about whether there was a real world use case for
this document at all. This seemed to have been based mostly on the EAP
Method requirement of an MSR, and the most common EAP Method being EAPTLS.
Where if you implement TLS for EAPTLS, you wouldn't be a real constrained
CoAP device anymore. This was clarified in the -13 draft with examples of
other EAP Methods that produce an MSR that can be used.
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.)
Yes there was one person who objected (see 2. above). It is believed this
issue is now resolved with the -13 draft.
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)?
There are implementations, e.g. https://github.com/topics/coap-eap
### Additional Reviews
5. Does this document need review from other IETF working groups or external
organizations? Have those reviews occurred?
Yes. It was reviewed by EMU WG.
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.
N/A
### 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?
Yes. It is ready to be handed off to the responsible Area Director.
10. Several IETF Areas have assembled [lists of common issues that their
reviewers encounter][6]. Do any such issues remain that would merit specific
attention from subsequent reviews?
No. There are no remaining issues.
11. What type of RFC publication is being requested on the IETF stream (Best
Current Practice, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard, Informational,
Experimental, or Historic)? Why is this the proper type of RFC? Do all
Datatracker state attributes correctly reflect this intent?
Proposed Standard.
12. Has the interested community confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR
disclosures required by [BCP 78][7] and [BCP 79][8] have been filed? If not,
explain why. If yes, summarize any discussion and conclusion regarding the
intellectual property rights (IPR) disclosures, including links to relevant
emails.
Authors confirmed they do not know of any IPR:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ace/mHTFS99rLcr8ItU4Rr_6i7ToLSQ/
13. Has each Author or Contributor confirmed their willingness to be listed as
such? If the number of Authors/Editors on the front page is greater than 5,
please provide a justification.
Confirmed.
14. Identify any remaining I-D nits in this document. (See [the idnits tool][9]
and the checkbox items found in Guidelines to Authors of Internet-Drafts).
Simply running the idnits tool is not enough; please review the entire
guidelines document.
Checking boilerplate required by RFC 5378 and the IETF Trust (see
https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info):
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
No issues found here.
Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/1id-guidelines.txt:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
== There is 1 instance of lines with non-ascii characters in the document.
Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist :
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
No issues found here.
Miscellaneous warnings:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
-- The document date (27 May 2022) is 19 days in the past. Is this
intentional?
Checking references for intended status: Proposed Standard
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
(See RFCs 3967 and 4897 for information about using normative references
to lower-maturity documents in RFCs)
-- Looks like a reference, but probably isn't: '0' on line 632
-- Looks like a reference, but probably isn't: '1' on line 629
-- Looks like a reference, but probably isn't: '2' on line 629
** Downref: Normative reference to an Informational RFC: RFC 5869
** Downref: Normative reference to an Informational RFC: RFC 7967
== Outdated reference: A later version (-46) exists of
draft-ietf-ace-oauth-authz-36
== Outdated reference: draft-ietf-core-resource-directory has been
published as RFC 9176
== Outdated reference: draft-ietf-emu-eap-noob has been published as RFC
9140
-- Obsolete informational reference (is this intentional?): RFC 6347
(Obsoleted by RFC 9147)
Summary: 2 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 4 warnings (==), 5 comments (--).
15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa?
Yes.
16. List any normative references that are not freely available to anyone. Did
the community have sufficient access to review any such normative
references?
None.
17. Are there any normative downward references (see [RFC 3967][10],
[BCP 97][11])? If so, list them.
No.
18. Are there normative references to documents that are not ready for
advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state? If they exist, what is the
plan for their completion?
None.
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][12]).
* Assignment of EAP lower layer identifier.
IANA registry: https://www.iana.org/assignments/eap-numbers/eap-numbers.xhtml.
Requires expert review: Joseph Salowey. Please ask the authors to fill in the
IANA table.
* Assignment of the URI /.well-known/coap-eap
IANA registry:
https://www.iana.org/assignments/well-known-uris/well-known-uris.xhtml.
Requires expert review: Mark Nottingham. Please ask the authors to fill in the
IANA table.
* Assignment of the media type "application/coap-eap"
In order to move forward the draft, I am wondering if the media type
registration has been filled in according to
https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc6838.html#section-5. I believe the IANA
section of the document should include a template similar to this:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc8613#section-13.8. I also believe it
would be clear to have the exact table of the registry in the IANA section.
IANA registry: https://www.iana.org/assignments/media-types/media-types.xhtml.
Requires expert review: Ned Freed, Alexey Melnikov, Murray Kucherawy.
From RFC 6838: "registration requests can be sent to iana@iana.org". A web form
for registration requests is also available:
http://www.iana.org/form/media-types according to
https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc6838.html#section-5.
* Assignment of the content format "application/coap-eap"
IANA registry: https://www.iana.org/assignments/media-types/media-types.xhtml.
Requires expert review: Ned Freed, Alexey Melnikov, Murray Kucherawy.
Could you please send the requests to iana@iana.org ?
A web form for registration requests is also available:
https://www.iana.org/form/media-types.
Please fill the IANA section with the exact table.
* Assignment of the resource type (rt=) "core.coap-eap"
IANA registry:
https://www.iana.org/assignments/core-parameters/core-parameters.xhtml.
Requires expert review: Carsten Bormann, Jaime Jimenez, Christian Amsüss. Could
you please send the requests to iana@iana.org ? According to
https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc6690.html#section-3.1, can you please let us
know if you have followed the described procedure ?
* Assignment of the numbers assigned for the cipher suite
negotiation
Can you please write down the assignment of numbers for the cipher suite
negotiation ?
* Assignment of the numbers assigned for the numbers of the CBOR
object in CoAP-EAP
Can you please write down the assignment of numbers of the CBOR object in
CoAP-EAP ? In, particular, I would like to know the link to the IANA registry
as well as the reference to the registration procedure you followed and the
exact table.
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.
[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://trac.ietf.org/trac/ops/wiki/yang-review-tools
[5]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8342.html
[6]: https://trac.ietf.org/trac/iesg/wiki/ExpertTopics
[7]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp78
[8]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp79
[9]: https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/
[10]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3967.html
[11]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp97
[12]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8126.html