# Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents, template from
datatracker.ietf.org, dated 4 July 2022.
draft-ietf-anima-rfc8366bis-25 write-up
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?
Strong consensus including good in-person discussions with past and present
ADs during IETF meetings.
2. Was there controversy about particular points, or were there decisions where
the consensus was particularly rough?
No.
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)?
There are several pre-existing implementations of BRKSI (RFC8995) that are using
the JSON encoding of the rfc8366 voucher according to the rfc7951 yang/json
mapping rules. These where validated to interoperate and that rfc8366bis still
provides backward compatible definitions of those BRSKI vouchers.
There are two implementations of the subset of rfc8366bis required for cBRSKI
(sandelman, iot-consultancy).
There are two implementations for the subset of rfc8366bis required for BRSKI-PRM
(siemens).
We think we have a significant number of implementers overall. The document
describes a superset of features of several different BRSKI variations. This list is likely
not complete.
We currently have no RFC embedded implementation reporting, but one is planned
to be included in the cBRSKI drafts (still in IETF processing).
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.
The authors think no further reviews are needed. The co-authors of all the BRSKI
variations did extensively review rfc8366bis to ensure that it will work for their
variation of BRSKI. Those BRSKI variation draft/RFCs also had significant reviews
from other parts of the IETF.
Discussions for proposing to use specific BRSKI technologies such as cBRSKI, and
in dependency rfc8366bis outside of IETF are occuring by authors (e.g.: with Thread).
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.
There were (as described above) many discussions with yang doctors occured,
and one of the yang doctors is a co-author (Qiufang Ma), no formal review
request was done yet. If necessary the authors suggest to ask Per Anderson, or
even better Rob Wilton (who seemingly was not re-added to yang doctors after
finishing his AD run).
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]?
Yes. According to authors, Pyang-2.7.1 is used to create the SID list for cBRSKI
included in the draft, it passes all checks. YANG is used for Data at Rest which is
outsideof the scope of NMDA. This is unchanged since RFC8366.
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.
Only YANG is used as a formal language (see above).
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, for me, this document is in good sharp now.
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?
No expert issues for this OPS area doc outside the above YANG details.
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?
Requested publication type: Standard Track.
Proper type because this is a new revision of RFC8366 which already is standard
and this version is backward compatbile, adding new extensions - without the
need for any existing or future RFC to still refer to RFC8366.
Header attributes correctly indicate standards track and obsoletion of rfc8366.
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, Authors where reminded endless times through the IETF Note Well of
their responsibilities to disclose IPR to the IETF. Including every time when
uploading a new version of the draft.
There is no IPR disclosure for this document.
It was mentioned that rfc8995, which this document updates too, has a IPR
disclosure. Up to now, the owner of that IPR have not extended their IPR
disclosure to this document.
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. This document has five authors. They all expressed their willingness to be
listed by emails.
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.)
This document is currently Nits free.
15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the [IESG
Statement on Normative and Informative References][16].
No.
16. List any normative references that are not freely available to anyone. Did
the community have sufficient access to review any such normative
references?
NA.
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.
NA.
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.
This RFC will obsolete RFC8366. For now, the Metadata and abstract text use
word "update". The author said it would be fixed in next -026 version. It also
update RFC8995.
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]).
From the document shepherd's review, all above has been done correctly.
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.
Suggested Experts: Same as for the pre-existing BRSKI IANA registry tables.
[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://wiki.ietf.org/group/ops/yang-review-tools
[5]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8342.html
[6]: https://wiki.ietf.org/group/iesg/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/