The ALTO Transport Information Publication Service
draft-ietf-alto-new-transport-22

[Ballot comment]
Thank you to Donald Eastlake for the SECDIR review.

Thanks for addressing my DISCUSS feedback.

** Section 6.2.  Editorial. New text was added clarifying text to prescribe that TIPS view URI must not be reused.  I would recommend being a clearer on this language.

OLD
      A server MUST NOT use a URI for different TIPS views, either for
      different resources or different request bodies to the same
      resource.
NEW
A server MUST NOT use the same URI for different TIPS views, either for different resources or different request bodies to the same      resource.


** Section 9. 
  The security considerations (Section 15 of [RFC7285]) of the base
  protocol fully apply to this extension.  For example, the same
  authenticity and integrity considerations (Section 15.1 of [RFC7285])
  still fully apply;

Since ALTO TIPS is a new protocol mechanism is it possible to improve on the TLS guidance in Section 8.3.5 of RFC7295 (from circa 2014)?  Specifically, can RFC9325 be mandated?

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

Many thanks to Spencer Dawkins for his ART ART reviews (most recent being https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/art/LibZiksz5-nO-g8IyOJrrtczj94/), and to Martin Thomson for his HTTPDir reviews (most recent being https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/last-call/vz87ZLJVlbuVnSacxli8hvl-LTU/). Spencer and Martin's expertise has helped improve the document considerably, so thanks to them, and to the authors for considering their reviews.

Thank you for addressing my previous DISCUSS.

[Ballot discuss]
Thank you for the work on this document.

Many thanks to Spencer Dawkins for his ART ART reviews (most recent being https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/art/LibZiksz5-nO-g8IyOJrrtczj94/), and to Martin Thomson for his HTTPDir reviews (most recent being https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/last-call/vz87ZLJVlbuVnSacxli8hvl-LTU/). Spencer and Martin's expertise has helped improve the document considerably, so thanks to them, and to the authors for considering their reviews.

Thank you for addressing my request to post the new media type to the media-type list for review.

I have a couple of points I'd like to DISCUSS.

Talking about the media types, I was surprised to see that both media types are used with two different formats. For example, application/alto-tips+json is used both with a JSON object of type AddTIPSResponse (section 6.2) and a JSON object of type UpdatesGraphSummary (section 7.4.2). I asked Murray to take a look (as the expert on media types), so please refer to his ballot.

In several places (see below for what I identified as problematic SHOULDs) the document lacks text about why these are SHOULD and not MUST or MAY. I agree with John Klensin, who formulated it very clearly: If SHOULD is used, then it must be accompanied by at least one of: (1) A general description of the character of the exceptions and/or in what areas exceptions are likely to arise.  Examples are fine but, except in plausible and rare cases, not enumerated lists. (2) A statement about what should be done, or what the considerations are, if the "SHOULD" requirement is not met. (3) A statement about why it is not a MUST. I believe some context around these would be enough to solve my concern, and give the reader enough context to make an informed decision. If you believe the context is there, and I just missed it, please do let me know.

Francesca

Section 6.2:

> A server SHOULD NOT use properties that are not included in the request body to determine the URI of a TIPS view, such as cookies or the client's IP address.

> If the TIPS request does not have a "resource-id" field, the error code of the error message MUST be E_MISSING_FIELD and the "field" field SHOULD be "resource-id".

> The "field" field SHOULD be the full path of the "resource-id" field, and the "value" field SHOULD be the invalid resource-id.

Section 7.2:

> Hence, the server processing logic SHOULD be:

Section 8.5:

> If the new value does not, whether there is an update depends on whether the previous value satisfies the test. If it did not, the updates graph SHOULD NOT have an update.

[Ballot discuss]
Thanks for working on this specification.

I have following points which I want to discuss further -

- I understand this new transport is supposed to take advantages of HTTP/2 and HTTP/3 features and have backward compatibility with HTTP/1.x (x=1, likely). My take is, if I want to server ALTO server over HTTP2/ or HTTP/3 I would use this new transport. Now if I also want to also support HTTP1.x for whatever reasons then I have issue, should this new transport is sufficient to support all the HTTP versions up to HTTP/3? if yes, then why this does specification not update or even obsolete rfc8895? if the answer is NO, does that mean I need to implement both this specification and rfc8895 for HTTP1.1? This relation is not explicitly defined in this current draft, which it should.

- I am not convinced that incremental update actually reduces storage at ALTO server, how is that so? I don't think there is an strict requirement that all the ALTO clients need to be updated to the recent version to be functional (as described in this specification), that means unless the serve is sure that all the clients are updated to certain version it has to keep the update versions. As storage reduction is a motivation for the transport requirement this motivation need to be well described to derive the requirement.

- I didn't find any explanation of how the "Concurrent, non-blocking update transmission" requirement is meet by the new transport. is this solved by the use of HTTP/3 with uses QUIC and does not have HOL blocking within a connection? Or is this addressed by multiple concurrent HTTP connection to the ALTO server? This need to be understood better and we should define what actually "Concurrent, non-blocking update transmission" means in this context of fetching updates.

- The encoding or data type of "updates graph (ug)" and "version" is not defined. The example uses numeric numbers which is easy to understand with incremental values. However, unless and otherwise this data type is defined then it is up to the implementers to select that and which will lead to interoperability issues. or may be I am missing something here, that is why I need to discuss the intention here.

-  Here we are composing URIs from the ug , that tells me without proper encoding on ug defined there might be some internationalization issues (see rfc6365). Has there been any thoughts or discussions on this encoding and potential issues?


and I am also supporting Roman's discuss.

[Ballot comment]
Hi,

Thank you for this document.  I haven't reviewed this document that closely, and it might be interesting to know whether there are interoperable implementations of this specification, or where there may still be issues lurking, or more precise text to describe its behavior and APIs.  Hence, I was wondering whether it would be better from this document to be published as an experimental RFC rather than Proposed Standard, this would then leave a lot more flexibility for making more substantial changes to the protocol specification in future, if needed.

Regards,
Rob

# Document Shepherd Write-Up for -16

## 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?

There is clear consensus to progress this specification.

2. Was there controversy about particular points, or were there decisions where
  the consensus was particularly rough?

No controversy was raised during the development of this specification from the
WG participants. There were some discussions about various design options to meet
the new transport requirements, naturally. These options were presented and discussed in
many WG meetings. No objections from the WG were raised against the actual design
(especially during the two WGLCs organized for this document).

Some concerns were raised by some directorate reviewers, e.g., server Push usage,
1:1 relationship between clients and connections, etc. The document includes NEW
text to motivate these design choices when appropriate. The specification was also
updated to reflect the comments from the reviewers (e.g., ordering requirement,
explicit the transport requirements, avoid the impression of design-by-example
by indicating the expected behavior (e.g., increment by 1), etc.

The author also included a new section to describe to what extent this work adheres
to "Building Protocols with HTTP" BCP. The authors also updated the language to
align with the recommendation in RFC9205#Section 3.1.

During the IETF LC, the server Push usage and 1:1 relationship between clients
and connections were re-challenged, especially given the considerations in the
last paragraph of Section 4.11 of RFC 9205. As an outcome, the design was updated
by removing the 1:1 connection affinity and the appendix related to Server Push.
The text was also updated to highlight the URLs that point to specific server instances.

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.

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)?

The only implementation that was disclosed is [18].

## 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.

HTTP. HTTP experts, ARTART (x2), and HTTP directorate were solicited for review.

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.

The document includes required details to register new media types. However, as
per  RFC6838, Expert review  is only for Vendor and Personal Trees.

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.

JSON examples were checked by the Shepherd. Few issues were found in previous
versions but these are now fixed. One of the issues was inherited from RFC 8895.
An errata was filled by the Shepherd against RFC 8895:
https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid7398

## 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 to all these questions. The document benefited from a fair set of reviews. The
reviews were adequately addressed by the authors. The authors also included text to
explain the design rationale (e.g., need for 1:1 client/connection).

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?

HTTP and ARTART experts were solicited in early stages of the development
of this specification to help the WG detect design issues early in the process and
fix them. Some of these reviews are not tracked in the Datatracker (e.g., Mark
Nottingham review).

In summary, the following early reviews were solicited for this specification:
RTGDIR, SECDIR, OPSDIR, ARTART (*2), TSVART, and HTTPDIR. These were handled
as part of the two WGLCs.

I think these reviews are fair and no subsequent review is needed.

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?

Proposed Standard. This is correctly reflected in the Datatracker.

This status is appropriate given the nature of the specification (ensure interop
between ALTO clients and servers). The intended status is also consistent with the
status used for RFC 8895.

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.

Yes. IPR polls were arranged by the Chairs during the call for adoption and also
in the WGLC. All authors replied to the IPR poll:

  * Roland: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/alto/I3YXVEwhmFJoqxnkuFsajqXwxSI/
  * Richard: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/alto/LvNFO2dz2rfz0EQiYkJXkIcD4n4/
  * Kai: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/alto/vjH-5XWEgKiF6pDt49hKSiXIFrc/
  * Lauren: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/alto/86WcZelUK40VJBW7TeBEQMTkiAs/
  * Lachlan: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/alto/Y9P3LRVyVa_BJ1FTG5_MVRW2zYg/

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.

Yes.

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.)

Some few nits are displayed by idnits, but those are false positives.

15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the [IESG
    Statement on Normative and Informative References][16].

I don't think so. I initially had a doubt about RFC 8895, but I think this falls under
"Normative references specify documents that must be read to understand" part of [16].

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?

No.

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]).

The document requests the registration of two media types from the IANA registry
available at [19]. Some modifications are needed to -10, though:

* call out explicitly the IANA registry: https://github.com/ietf-wg-alto/draft-ietf-alto-new-transport/pull/33
* follow the template in RFC 6838: https://github.com/ietf-wg-alto/draft-ietf-alto-new-transport/pull/34

This is now fixed in -11.

The provided details are adequate as per RFC 6838.

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://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/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/
[18]: https://github.com/IETF-Hackathon/ietf116-project-presentations/blob/main/alto-new-transport-presentation.pdf
[19]: https://www.iana.org/assignments/media-types/media-types.xhtml

[Ballot comment]
Thanks to Spencer Dawkins for his two ARTART reviews.

The answer to question #11 in the shepherd writeup is incomplete.

I support Francesca's DISCUSS position.  To answer her question about media types, I must admit I'm at a loss to understand this object notation and how it relates to a JSON payload.  A reference to decoding it would be helpful.  My best guess is that this one media type will be used for both cases, the payload will be something in JSON format in either case, and a consumer infers the semantics of the payload based on inspection of its structure, presumably returning an error if something unexpected is found.  However, this seems peculiar in the context of media types; I would prefer to see such division done using a parameter to the media type rather than inspection, since the whole idea of labeling a payload with a media type is to know what it is you're holding before you start doing something with it.

The SHOULDs in 6.2 are bare.  When might one legitimately deviate from that advice?  If no such reason exists, why aren't they MUSTs?  Same question about the SHOULDs in 4.1 and 8.5.

Regarding Sections 10.1 and 10.2, I suggest reviewing RFC 8126 for what's expected in "Interoperability Considerations".

[Ballot comment]

# Éric Vyncke, INT AD, comments for draft-ietf-alto-new-transport-17

Thank you for the work put into this document even if I am not too satisfied by the whole document, hence my ABSTAIN position per "I cannot support sending this document forward." (see https://www.ietf.org/standards/process/iesg-ballots/). FYI, I stopped reviewing it after section 2 as my ballot position was already forged.

Please find below one 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 Mohamed Boucadair for the shepherd's detailed write-up including the WG consensus and the justification of the intended status.

Other thanks to Bob Halley, the Internet directorate reviewer (at my request), please consider this int-dir review:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/review-ietf-alto-new-transport-16-intdir-telechat-halley-2023-10-19/ (review dated 19th of October and I have yet to read a reaction from the authors, comforting my ABSTAIN as I share Bob's concerns)

Other thanks to Wesley Eddy, the IoT directorate reviewer (at my request), please consider this iot-dir review:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/review-ietf-alto-new-transport-17-iotdir-telechat-eddy-2023-10-23/ (and I have read Kai's reply)

I hope that this review helps to improve the document,

Regards,

-éric


# COMMENTS

## Abstract

The use of HTTP/1.1, HTTP/1.x, HTTP/2, HTTP/3 in the same paragraph is *really* confusing. Consider aligning the version to be consistent.

## Section 1

Like already written by other ballots, let's simply s/two transport protocols/two protocols/

In `and the server sends the complete content of the requested information (if any) resource to the client`, is it about an ALTO client or an application client ?

## Section 2.1

`Incremental updates can reduce both the data storage on an ALTO server` hummm... in order to send increments, the server must keep all those increments for all its clients. I.e., increasing the data storage. Please either correct me (I would be happy) or the text.

Is 'prefetching' the right term ? It relates to client-initiated fetch rather than server-initiated push.

I strongly object (but not a block DISCUSS level) to `as many development tools and current ALTO implementations are based on HTTP/1.1.`. An IETF protocol design cannot be bound by 2023 implementations, e.g., else IPv6 would have never been standardized.

Where is the data model defined in `The key idea is to introduce a unified data model to describe the changes ` ?

# NITS

## Abstract

Should s/defines/define/ in `ALTO incremental updates using Server-Sent Events (SSE) (RFC 8895) defines a multiplexing protocol on top of HTTP/1.x`

## TIPS

I am not a native English speaker, and it is probably too late, but s/Transport Information Publication Service/Information Transport Publication Service/ sounds better to my French-speaking ears.

[Ballot discuss]
Thank you for the work on this document.

Many thanks to Spencer Dawkins for his ART ART reviews (most recent being https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/art/LibZiksz5-nO-g8IyOJrrtczj94/), and to Martin Thomson for his HTTPDir reviews (most recent being https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/last-call/vz87ZLJVlbuVnSacxli8hvl-LTU/). Spencer and Martin's expertise has helped improve the document considerably, so thanks to them, and to the authors for considering their reviews.

I have a couple of points I'd like to DISCUSS.

First of all, I have looked for media type reviews in the media-types mailing list, and could not find the registration request posted. As specified by RFC6838, it is strongly encouraged to post the media type registration to the media-types mailing list for review (see https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/media-types/1hOBaaTVCfl-M3uHmu2a7Q5Ogzk/ for an example of a registration review). If I missed it, my apologies. If not, please post to the media-types mailing list, and I will remove the discuss with no objections raised in a week or so. Please make sure to copy-paste the full sections 10.1 and 10.2 (not just a pointer to them) in your mail to media-types.

Talking about the media types, I was surprised to see that both media types are used with two different formats. For example, application/alto-tips+json is used both with a JSON object of type AddTIPSResponse (section 6.2) and a JSON object of type UpdatesGraphSummary (section 7.4.2). I asked Murray to take a look (as the expert on media types), so I will look out for his ballot there.

In several places (see below for what I identified as problematic SHOULDs) the document lacks text about why these are SHOULD and not MUST or MAY. I agree with John Klensin, who formulated it very clearly: If SHOULD is used, then it must be accompanied by at least one of: (1) A general description of the character of the exceptions and/or in what areas exceptions are likely to arise.  Examples are fine but, except in plausible and rare cases, not enumerated lists. (2) A statement about what should be done, or what the considerations are, if the "SHOULD" requirement is not met. (3) A statement about why it is not a MUST. I believe some context around these would be enough to solve my concern, and give the reader enough context to make an informed decision. If you believe the context is there, and I just missed it, please do let me know.

Francesca

Section 6.2:

> A server SHOULD NOT use properties that are not included in the request body to determine the URI of a TIPS view, such as cookies or the client's IP address.

> If the TIPS request does not have a "resource-id" field, the error code of the error message MUST be E_MISSING_FIELD and the "field" field SHOULD be "resource-id".

> The "field" field SHOULD be the full path of the "resource-id" field, and the "value" field SHOULD be the invalid resource-id.

Section 7.2:

> Hence, the server processing logic SHOULD be:

Section 8.5:

> If the new value does not, whether there is an update depends on whether the previous value satisfies the test. If it did not, the updates graph SHOULD NOT have an update.

[Ballot comment]
# Internet AD comments for draft-ietf-alto-new-transport-17
CC @ekline

* comment syntax:
  - https://github.com/mnot/ietf-comments/blob/main/format.md

* "Handling Ballot Positions":
  - https://ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-ballot-positions/

## Nits

### S1

* "there is no capability it transmits" ->
  "there is no capability for the server to transmit", perhaps?

[Ballot discuss]
** Section 6.2.  Construction of the “tips-view-uri”.

-- Under what circumstances would it be appropriate to use http (instead of https) for the tips-view-uri for this new protocol mechanism?  Why is http needed?  Could https be the only option?  I appreciate that there is history of an http URL from RFC7285 published in 2014, but has field experience continue to dictate a need for this insecure approach for an entirely new service?  If it is needed would there be a away to express a preference for secure transport?

-- Is there any underlying assumption in how “tips-view-path” is constructed? I asked because Section 9.3 says “An outside party that can read the TIPS response or that can observe TIPS requests can obtain the TIPS view URI and use that to send fraudulent ‘DELETE’ requests thus disabling the service for the valid ALTO client.  This can be avoided by encrypting the requests and responses (Section 15 of [RFC7285]).”  Observing the tips-view-uri is one way to spoof the URI, but what if it could be guessed?  Is there an assumption that a unguessable random string is part of the path?  As far as I can find, no text explicitly says that, although the examples imply it.  If the string is guessable being encrypted doesn’t help but using some kind of authentication would.

[Ballot comment]
Thank you to Donald Eastlake for the SECDIR review.

** Section 6.3.  The example in Figure 10 describes Basic Auth.  Section 8.3.5 of RFC7295 notes that Digest Auth is MTI.  Recommend using that instead.

** Section 9. 
  The security considerations (Section 15 of [RFC7285]) of the base
  protocol fully apply to this extension.  For example, the same
  authenticity and integrity considerations (Section 15.1 of [RFC7285])
  still fully apply;

Since ALTO TIPS is a new protocol mechanism is it possible to improve on the TLS guidance in Section 8.3.5 of RFC7295 (from circa 2014)?  Specifically, can RFC9325 be mandated?

# Document Shepherd Write-Up for -16

## 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?

There is clear consensus to progress this specification.

2. Was there controversy about particular points, or were there decisions where
  the consensus was particularly rough?

No controversy was raised during the development of this specification from the
WG participants. There were some discussions about various design options to meet
the new transport requirements, naturally. These options were presented and discussed in
many WG meetings. No objections from the WG were raised against the actual design
(especially during the two WGLCs organized for this document).

Some concerns were raised by some directorate reviewers, e.g., server Push usage,
1:1 relationship between clients and connections, etc. The document includes NEW
text to motivate these design choices when appropriate. The specification was also
updated to reflect the comments from the reviewers (e.g., ordering requirement,
explicit the transport requirements, avoid the impression of design-by-example
by indicating the expected behavior (e.g., increment by 1), etc.

The author also included a new section to describe to what extent this work adheres
to "Building Protocols with HTTP" BCP. The authors also updated the language to
align with the recommendation in RFC9205#Section 3.1.

During the IETF LC, the server Push usage and 1:1 relationship between clients
and connections were re-challenged, especially given the considerations in the
last paragraph of Section 4.11 of RFC 9205. As an outcome, the design was updated
by removing the 1:1 connection affinity and the appendix related to Server Push.
The text was also updated to highlight the URLs that point to specific server instances.

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.

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)?

The only implementation that was disclosed is [18].

## 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.

HTTP. HTTP experts, ARTART (x2), and HTTP directorate were solicited for review.

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.

The document includes required details to register new media types. However, as
per  RFC6838, Expert review  is only for Vendor and Personal Trees.

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.

JSON examples were checked by the Shepherd. Few issues were found in previous
versions but these are now fixed. One of the issues was inherited from RFC 8895.
An errata was filled by the Shepherd against RFC 8895:
https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid7398

## 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 to all these questions. The document benefited from a fair set of reviews. The
reviews were adequately addressed by the authors. The authors also included text to
explain the design rationale (e.g., need for 1:1 client/connection).

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?

HTTP and ARTART experts were solicited in early stages of the development
of this specification to help the WG detect design issues early in the process and
fix them. Some of these reviews are not tracked in the Datatracker (e.g., Mark
Nottingham review).

In summary, the following early reviews were solicited for this specification:
RTGDIR, SECDIR, OPSDIR, ARTART (*2), TSVART, and HTTPDIR. These were handled
as part of the two WGLCs.

I think these reviews are fair and no subsequent review is needed.

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?

Proposed Standard.

This status is appropriate given the nature of the specification (ensure interop
between ALTO clients and servers). The intended status is also consistent with the
status used for RFC 8895.

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.

Yes. IPR polls were arranged by the Chairs during the call for adoption and also
in the WGLC. All authors replied to the IPR poll:

  * Roland: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/alto/I3YXVEwhmFJoqxnkuFsajqXwxSI/
  * Richard: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/alto/LvNFO2dz2rfz0EQiYkJXkIcD4n4/
  * Kai: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/alto/vjH-5XWEgKiF6pDt49hKSiXIFrc/
  * Lauren: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/alto/86WcZelUK40VJBW7TeBEQMTkiAs/
  * Lachlan: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/alto/Y9P3LRVyVa_BJ1FTG5_MVRW2zYg/

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.

Yes.

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.)

Some few nits are displayed by idnits, but those are false positives.

15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the [IESG
    Statement on Normative and Informative References][16].

I don't think so. I initially had a doubt about RFC 8895, but I think this falls under
"Normative references specify documents that must be read to understand" part of [16].

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?

No.

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]).

The document requests the registration of two media types from the IANA registry
available at [19]. Some modifications are needed to -10, though:

* call out explicitly the IANA registry: https://github.com/ietf-wg-alto/draft-ietf-alto-new-transport/pull/33
* follow the template in RFC 6838: https://github.com/ietf-wg-alto/draft-ietf-alto-new-transport/pull/34

This is now fixed in -11.

The provided details are adequate as per RFC 6838.

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://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/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/
[18]: https://github.com/IETF-Hackathon/ietf116-project-presentations/blob/main/alto-new-transport-presentation.pdf
[19]: https://www.iana.org/assignments/media-types/media-types.xhtml

Request for Last Call review by GENART Completed: Ready with Issues. Reviewer: Linda Dunbar. Sent review to list. Submission of review completed at an earlier date.

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

IANA has completed its review of draft-ietf-alto-new-transport-14. If any part of this review is inaccurate, please let us know.

IANA understands that, upon approval of this document, there is a single action which we must complete.

In the application namespace of the Media Types registry located at:

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

two new application media types will be registered as follows:

Name: alto-tips+json
Template: [ TBD-at-registration ]
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

Name: alto-tipsparams+json
Template: [ TBD-at-registration ]
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

We understand that this is the only action required to be completed upon approval of this document.

NOTE: The action 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 action that will be performed.

For definitions of IANA review states, please see:

https://datatracker.ietf.org/help/state/draft/iana-review

Thank you,

David Dong
IANA Services Sr. Specialist

The following Last Call announcement was sent out (ends 2023-10-06):

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC: alto-chairs@ietf.org, alto@ietf.org, draft-ietf-alto-new-transport@ietf.org, martin.h.duke@gmail.com, mohamed.boucadair@orange.com
Reply-To: last-call@ietf.org
Sender:
Subject: Last Call:  (The ALTO Transport Information Publication Service) to Proposed Standard


The IESG has received a request from the Application-Layer Traffic
Optimization WG (alto) to consider the following document: - 'The ALTO
Transport Information Publication Service'
  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 2023-10-06. 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


  The ALTO Protocol (RFC 7285) leverages HTTP/1.1 and is designed for
  the simple, sequential request-reply use case, in which an ALTO
  client requests a sequence of information resources, and the server
  responds with the complete content of each resource one at a time.

  ALTO incremental updates using Server-Sent Events (SSE) (RFC 8895)
  defines a multiplexing protocol on top of HTTP/1.x, so that an ALTO
  server can incrementally push resource updates to clients whenever
  monitored network information resources change, allowing the clients
  to monitor multiple resources at the same time.  However, HTTP/2 and
  later versions already support concurrent, non-blocking transport of
  multiple streams in the same HTTP connection.

  To take advantage of newer HTTP features, this document introduces
  the ALTO Transport Information Publication Service (TIPS).  TIPS uses
  an incremental RESTful design to give an ALTO client the new
  capability to explicitly, concurrently (non-blocking) request (pull)
  specific incremental updates using native HTTP/2 or HTTP/3, while
  still functioning for HTTP/1.1.




The file can be obtained via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-alto-new-transport/



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

# Document Shepherd Write-Up for -11

## 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?

There is clear consensus to progress this specification.

2. Was there controversy about particular points, or were there decisions where
  the consensus was particularly rough?

No controversy was raised during the development of this specification from the
WG participants. There were some discussions about various design options to meet
the new transport requirements, naturally. These options were presented and discussed in
many WG meetings. No objections from the WG were raised against the actual design
(especially during the two WGLCs organized for this document).

Some concerns were raised by some directorate reviewers, e.g., server Push usage,
1:1 relationship between clients and connections, etc. The document includes NEW
text to motivate these design choices when appropriate. The specification was also
updated to reflect the comments from the reviewers (e.g., ordering requirement,
explicit the transport requirements, avoid the impression of design-by-example
by indicating the expected behavior (e.g. increment by 1), etc.

The author also included a new section to describe to what extent this work adheres
to "Building Protocols with HTTP" BCP. The authors also updated the language to
align with the recommendation in RFC9205#Section 3.1.

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.

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)?

The only implementation that was disclosed is [18].

## 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.

HTTP. HTTP experts, ARTART (x2), and HTTP directorate were solicited for review.

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.

The document includes required details to register new media types. However, as
per  RFC6838, Expert review  is only for Vendor and Personal Trees.

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.

JSON examples were checked by the Shepherd. Few issues were found in previous
versions but these are now fixed. One of the issues was inherited from RFC 8895.
An errata was filled by the Shepherd against RFC 8895:
https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid7398

## 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 to all these questions. The document benefited from a fair set of reviews. The
reviews were adequately addressed by the authors. The authors also included text to
explain the design rationale (e.g., need for 1:1 client/connection).

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?

HTTP and ARTART experts were solicited in early stages of the development
of this specification to help the WG detect design issues early in the process and
fix them. Some of these reviews are not tracked in the Datatracker (e.g., Mark
Nottingham review).

In summary, the following early reviews were solicited for this specification:
RTGDIR, SECDIR, OPSDIR, ARTART (*2), TSVART, and HTTPDIR. These were handled
as part of the two WGLCs.

I think these reviews are fair and no subsequent review is needed.

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?

Proposed Standard.

This status is appropriate given the nature of the specification (ensure interop
between ALTO clients and servers). The intended status is also consistent with the
status used for RFC 8895.

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.

Yes. IPR polls were arranged by the Chairs during the call for adoption and also
in the WGLC. All authors replied to the IPR poll:

  * Roland: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/alto/I3YXVEwhmFJoqxnkuFsajqXwxSI/
  * Richard: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/alto/LvNFO2dz2rfz0EQiYkJXkIcD4n4/
  * Kai: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/alto/vjH-5XWEgKiF6pDt49hKSiXIFrc/
  * Lauren: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/alto/86WcZelUK40VJBW7TeBEQMTkiAs/
  * Lachlan: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/alto/Y9P3LRVyVa_BJ1FTG5_MVRW2zYg/

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.

Yes.

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.)

Some few nits are displayed by idnits, but those are false positives.

15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the [IESG
    Statement on Normative and Informative References][16].

I don't think so. I initially had a doubt about RFC 8895, but I think this falls under
"Normative references specify documents that must be read to understand" part of [16].

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?

No.

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]).

The document requests the registration of two media types from the IANA registry
available at [19]. Some modifications are needed to -10, though:

* call out explicitly the IANA registry: https://github.com/ietf-wg-alto/draft-ietf-alto-new-transport/pull/33
* follow the template in RFC 6838: https://github.com/ietf-wg-alto/draft-ietf-alto-new-transport/pull/34

This is now fixed in -11.

The provided details are adequate as per RFC 6838.

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://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/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/
[18]: https://github.com/IETF-Hackathon/ietf116-project-presentations/blob/main/alto-new-transport-presentation.pdf
[19]: https://www.iana.org/assignments/media-types/media-types.xhtml

# Document Shepherd Write-Up for -10

## 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?

There is clear consensus to progress this specification.

2. Was there controversy about particular points, or were there decisions where
  the consensus was particularly rough?

No controversy was raised during the development of this specification from the
WG participants. There were some discussions about various design options to meet
the new transport requirements, naturally. These options were presented and discussed in
many WG meetings. No objections from the WG were raised against the actual design
(especially during the two WGLCs organized for this document).

Some concerns were raised by some directorate reviewers, e.g., server Push usage,
1:1 relationship between clients and connections, etc. The document includes NEW
text to motivate these design choices when appropriate. The specification was also
updated to reflect the comments from the reviewers (e.g., ordering requirement,
explicit the transport requirements, avoid the impression of design-by-example
by indicating the expected behavior (e.g. increment by 1), etc.

The author also included a new section to describe to what extent this work adheres
to "Building Protocols with HTTP" BCP. The authors also updated the language to
align with the recommendation in RFC9205#Section 3.1.

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.

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)?

The only implementation that was disclosed is [18].

## 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.

HTTP. HTTP experts, ARTART (x2), and HTTP directorate were solicited for review.

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.

The document includes required details to register new media types. However, as
per  RFC6838, Expert review  is only for Vendor and Personal Trees.

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.

JSON examples were checked by the Shepherd. Few issues were found in previous
versions but these are now fixed. One of the issues was inherited from RFC 8895.
An errata was filled by the Shepherd against RFC 8895:
https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid7398

## 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 to all these questions. The document benefited from a fair set of reviews. The
reviews were adequately addressed by the authors. The authors also included text to
explain the design rationale (e.g., need for 1:1 client/connection).

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?

HTTP and ARTART experts were solicited in early stages of the development
of this specification to help the WG detect design issues early in the process and
fix them. Some of these reviews are not tracked in the Datatracker (e.g., Mark
Nottingham review).

In summary, the following early reviews were solicited for this specification:
RTGDIR, SECDIR, OPSDIR, ARTART (*2), TSVART, and HTTPDIR. These were handled
as part of the two WGLCs.

I think these reviews are fair and no subsequent review is needed.

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?

Proposed Standard.

This status is appropriate given the nature of the specification (ensure interop
between ALTO clients and servers). The intended status is also consistent with the
status used for RFC 8895.

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.

Yes. IPR polls were arranged by the Chairs during the call for adoption and also
in the WGLC. All authors replied to the IPR poll:

  * Roland: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/alto/I3YXVEwhmFJoqxnkuFsajqXwxSI/
  * Richard: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/alto/LvNFO2dz2rfz0EQiYkJXkIcD4n4/
  * Kai: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/alto/vjH-5XWEgKiF6pDt49hKSiXIFrc/
  * Lauren: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/alto/86WcZelUK40VJBW7TeBEQMTkiAs/
  * Lachlan: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/alto/Y9P3LRVyVa_BJ1FTG5_MVRW2zYg/

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.

Yes.

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.)

Some few nits are displayed by idnits, but those are false positives.

15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the [IESG
    Statement on Normative and Informative References][16].

I don't think so. I initially had a doubt about RFC 8895, but I think this falls under
"Normative references specify documents that must be read to understand" part of [16].

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?

No.

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]).

The document requests the registration of two media types from the IANA registry
available at [19]. Some modifications are needed to -10, though:

* call out explicitly the IANA registry: https://github.com/ietf-wg-alto/draft-ietf-alto-new-transport/pull/33
* follow the template in RFC 6838: https://github.com/ietf-wg-alto/draft-ietf-alto-new-transport/pull/34

With these PRs merged, the provided details are adequate as per RFC 6838.

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://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/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/
[18]: https://github.com/IETF-Hackathon/ietf116-project-presentations/blob/main/alto-new-transport-presentation.pdf
[19]: https://www.iana.org/assignments/media-types/media-types.xhtml

# Document Shepherd Write-Up for -10

## 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?

There is clear consensus to progress this specification.

2. Was there controversy about particular points, or were there decisions where
  the consensus was particularly rough?

No controversy was raised during the development of this specification from the
WG participants. There were some discussions about various design options to meet
the new transport requirements, naturally. These options were presented and discussed in
many WG meetings. No objections from the WG were raised against the actual design
(especially during the two WGLCs organized for this document).

Some concerns were raised by some directorate reviewers, e.g., server Push usage,
1:1 relationship between clients and connections, etc. The document includes NEW
text to motivate these design choices when appropriate. The specification was also
updated to reflect the comments from the reviewers (e.g., ordering requirement,
explicit the transport requirements, avoid the impression of design-by-example
by indicating the expected behavior (e.g. increment by 1), etc.

The author also included a new section to describe to what extent this work adheres
to "Building Protocols with HTTP" BCP. The authors also updated the language to
align with the recommendation in RFC9205#Section 3.1.

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.

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)?

The only implementation that was disclosed is [18].

## 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.

HTTP. HTTP experts, ARTART (x2), and HTTP directorate were solicited for review.

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.

The document includes required details to register new media types. However, as
per  RFC6838, Expert review  is only for Vendor and Personal Trees.

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.

JSON examples were checked by the Shepherd. Few issues were found in previous
versions but these are now fixed. One of the issues was inherited from RFC 8895.
An errata was filled by the Shepherd against RFC 8895:
https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid7398

## 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 to all these questions. The document benefited from a fair set of reviews. The
reviews were adequately addressed by the authors. The authors also included text to
explain the design rationale (e.g., need for 1:1 client/connection).

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?

HTTP and ARTART experts were solicited in early stages of the development
of this specification to help the WG detect design issues early in the process and
fix them. Some of these reviews are not tracked in the Datatracker (e.g., Mark
Nottingham review).

In summary, the following early reviews were solicited for this specification:
RTGDIR, SECDIR, OPSDIR, ARTART (*2), TSVART, and HTTPDIR. These were handled
as part of the two WGLCs.

I think these reviews are fair and no subsequent review is needed.

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?

Proposed Standard.

This status is appropriate given the nature of the specification (ensure interop
between ALTO clients and servers). The intended status is also consistent with the
status used for RFC 8895.

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.

Yes. IPR polls were arranged by the Chairs during the call for adoption and also
in the WGLC. All authors replied to the IPR poll:

  * Roland: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/alto/I3YXVEwhmFJoqxnkuFsajqXwxSI/
  * Richard: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/alto/LvNFO2dz2rfz0EQiYkJXkIcD4n4/
  * Kai: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/alto/vjH-5XWEgKiF6pDt49hKSiXIFrc/
  * Lauren: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/alto/86WcZelUK40VJBW7TeBEQMTkiAs/
  * Lachlan: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/alto/Y9P3LRVyVa_BJ1FTG5_MVRW2zYg/

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.

Yes.

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.)

Some few nits are displayed by idnits, but those are false positives.

15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the [IESG
    Statement on Normative and Informative References][16].

I don't think so. I initially had a doubt about RFC 8895, but I think this falls under
"Normative references specify documents that must be read to understand" part of [16].

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?

No.

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]).

The document requests the registration of two media types from the IANA registry
available at [19]. Some modifications are needed to -10, though:

* call out explicitly the IANA registry: https://github.com/ietf-wg-alto/draft-ietf-alto-new-transport/pull/33
* follow the template in RFC 6838: https://github.com/ietf-wg-alto/draft-ietf-alto-new-transport/pull/34

With these PRs merged, the provided details are adequate as per RFC 6838.

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://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/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/
[18]: https://github.com/IETF-Hackathon/ietf116-project-presentations/blob/main/alto-new-transport-presentation.pdf
[19]: https://www.iana.org/assignments/media-types/media-types.xhtml

# Document Shepherd Write-Up for XXX

## 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?

There is clear consensus to progress this specification.

2. Was there controversy about particular points, or were there decisions where
  the consensus was particularly rough?

No controversy was raised during the development of this specification from the
WG participants. There were some discussions about various design options to meet
the new transport requirements, naturally. These options were presented and discussed in
many WG meetings. No objections from the WG were raised against the actual design
(especially during the two WGLCs organized for this document).

Some concerns were raised by some directorate reviewers, e.g., server Push usage,
1:1 relationship between clients and connections, etc. The document includes NEW
text to motivate these design choices when appropriate. The specification was also
updated to reflect the comments from the reviewers (e.g., ordering requirement,
explicit the transport requirements, avoid the impression of design-by-example
by indicating the expected behavior (e.g. increment by 1), etc.

The author also included a new section to describe to what extent this work adheres
to "Building Protocols with HTTP" BCP. The authors also updated the language to
align with the recommendation in RFC9205#Section 3.1.

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.

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)?

The only implementation that was disclosed is [18].

## 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.

HTTP. HTTP expert, ARTART (x2), and HTTP directorate were solicited for review.

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.

The document includes required details to register new media types. However, as
per  RFC6838, Expert review  is only for Vendor and Personal Trees.

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.

JSON examples were checked by the Shepherd. Few issues were found in previous
versions but these are now fixed. One of the issues was inherited from RFC 8895.
An errata was filled by the Shepherd against RFC 8895:
https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid7398

## 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 to all these questions. The document benefited from a fair set of reviews. The
reviews were adequately addressed by the authors. The authors also included text to
explain the design rationale (e.g., need for 1:1 client/connection).

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?

HTTP experts and ARTART experts were solicited in early stages of the development
of this specification to help the WG detect design issues early in the process and
fix them. Some of these reviews are not tracked in the Datatracker (e.g., Mark
Nottingham review).

In summary, the following early reviews were solicited for this specification:
RTGDIR, SECDIR, OPSDIR, ARTART (*2), TSVART, and HTTPDIR early reviews.

I think these reviews are fair and no subsequent review is needed.

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?

Proposed Standard.

This status is appropriate given the nature of the specification (ensure interop
between ALTO clients and servers). The intended status is also consistent with the
status used for RFC 8895.

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.

Yes. IPR polls were arranged by the Chairs during the call for adoption and also
in the WGLC. All authors replied to the IPR poll:

  * Roland: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/alto/I3YXVEwhmFJoqxnkuFsajqXwxSI/
  * Richard: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/alto/LvNFO2dz2rfz0EQiYkJXkIcD4n4/
  * Kai: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/alto/vjH-5XWEgKiF6pDt49hKSiXIFrc/
  * Lauren: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/alto/86WcZelUK40VJBW7TeBEQMTkiAs/
  * Lachlan: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/alto/Y9P3LRVyVa_BJ1FTG5_MVRW2zYg/

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.

Yes.

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.)

Some few nits are displayed by idnits, but those are false positives.

15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the [IESG
    Statement on Normative and Informative References][16].

I don't think so. I initially had a doubt about RFC 8895, but I think this falls under
"Normative references specify documents that must be read to understand" part of [16].

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?

No.

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]).

The document requests the registration of two media types from the IANA registry
available at [19]. The provided details are adequate as per RFC 6838.

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://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/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/
[18]: https://github.com/IETF-Hackathon/ietf116-project-presentations/blob/main/alto-new-transport-presentation.pdf
[19]: https://www.iana.org/assignments/media-types/media-types.xhtml

# Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents

...Log
# IPR Check OK
  * Roland: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/alto/I3YXVEwhmFJoqxnkuFsajqXwxSI/
  * Richard: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/alto/LvNFO2dz2rfz0EQiYkJXkIcD4n4/
  * Kai: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/alto/vjH-5XWEgKiF6pDt49hKSiXIFrc/
  * Lauren: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/alto/86WcZelUK40VJBW7TeBEQMTkiAs/
  * Lachlan: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/alto/Y9P3LRVyVa_BJ1FTG5_MVRW2zYg/

# Implementations: None.
...

## 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?

2. Was there controversy about particular points, or were there decisions where
  the consensus was particularly rough?

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.)

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)?

## 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.

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.

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]?

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.

## 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?

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?

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?

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.

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.

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.)

15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the [IESG
    Statement on Normative and Informative References][16].

16. List any normative references that are not freely available to anyone. Did
    the community have sufficient access to review any such normative
    references?

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.

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?

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.

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]).

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/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/