# 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