> (1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard,
> Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? Why
> is this the proper type of RFC? Is this type of RFC indicated in the
> title page header?
This document provides definition of a new HTTP header field, which is
targeted at replacing many similar but non standard HTTP header fields.
This is targeted at becoming a Proposed Standard, which is appropriate,
and which is indicated in the document header.
> (2) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document Announcement
> Write-Up. Please provide such a Document Announcement Write-Up. Recent
> examples can be found in the "Action" announcements for approved
> documents. The approval announcement contains the following sections:
> Technical Summary
> Relevant content can frequently be found in the abstract
> and/or introduction of the document. If not, this may be
> an indication that there are deficiencies in the abstract
> or introduction.
This document standardizes an HTTP extension header field that allows
proxy components to disclose information lost in the proxying
process, such as the originating IP address of a request and the IP address
of the proxy on the user-agent-facing interface. Given a trusted
path of proxying components, this makes it possible to arrange it so
that each subsequent component will have access to, for example, all IP
addresses used in the chain of proxied HTTP requests.
This document is meant to replace several ad-hoc solutions already
> Working Group Summary
> Was there anything in WG process that is worth noting? For
> example, was there controversy about particular points or
> were there decisions where the consensus was particularly
Nothing worth noting.
> Document Quality
> Are there existing implementations of the protocol? Have a
> significant number of vendors indicated their plan to
> implement the specification? Are there any reviewers that
> merit special mention as having done a thorough review,
> e.g., one that resulted in important changes or a
> conclusion that the document had no substantive issues? If
> there was a MIB Doctor, Media Type or other expert review,
> what was its course (briefly)? In the case of a Media Type
> review, on what date was the request posted?
There are several implementations of similar header fields already in use.
> Who is the Document Shepherd? Who is the Responsible Area
Alexey Melnikov is the document shepherd. Barry Leiba is the responsible AD.
> (3) Briefly describe the review of this document that was performed by
> the Document Shepherd. If this version of the document is not ready
> for publication, please explain why the document is being forwarded to
> the IESG.
I've read the whole document and tried to spot inconsistencies between
different parts or with documents being referenced. I've also reviewed ABNF
and IANA considerations in details. The latter was changed based on my
> (4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or
> breadth of the reviews that have been performed?
The document got lots of review in HTTPBIS WG and APPSAWG.
No concern about depth and breadth of the reviews.
> (5) Do portions of the document need review from a particular or from
> broader perspective, e.g., security, operational complexity, AAA, DNS,
> DHCP, XML, or internationalization? If so, describe the review that
> took place.
The document already got reviews regarding Privacy Considerations.
I can't think of another review that needs doing (apart from Directorate
reviews that would happen anyway).
> (6) Describe any specific concerns or issues that the Document Shepherd
> has with this document that the Responsible Area Director and/or the
> IESG should be aware of? For example, perhaps he or she is uncomfortable
> with certain parts of the document, or has concerns whether there really
> is a need for it. In any event, if the WG has discussed those issues and
> has indicated that it still wishes to advance the document, detail those
> concerns here.
> (7) Has each author confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR
> disclosures required for full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78
> and BCP 79 have already been filed. If not, explain why.
> (8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document?
> If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR
No IPR disclosures have been filed on this document.
> (9) How solid is the WG consensus behind this document? Does it
> represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others
> being silent, or does the WG as a whole understand and agree with it?
The document has solid WG consensus.
> (10) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme
> discontent? If so, please summarise the areas of conflict in separate
> email messages to the Responsible Area Director. (It should be in a
> separate email because this questionnaire is publicly available.)
> (11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this
> document. (See http://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts
> Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be
idnits 2.12.13 reports no errors/warnings.
> (12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review
> criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.
Expert Review for the Forwarded HTTP header field was requested
and the Designated Expert (Graham Klyne) confirmed that the registration
> (13) Have all references within this document been identified as
> either normative or informative?
> (14) Are there normative references to documents that are not ready for
> advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state? If such normative
> references exist, what is the plan for their completion?
The document references Normatively 2 drafts in the HTTPBis WG. The two
referenced drafts are believed to be near completion.
All other references are to RFCs.
> (15) Are there downward normative references references (see RFC 3967)?
> If so, list these downward references to support the Area Director in
> the Last Call procedure.
There are no DownRefs.
> (16) Will publication of this document change the status of any
> existing RFCs? Are those RFCs listed on the title page header, listed
> in the abstract, and discussed in the introduction? If the RFCs are not
> listed in the Abstract and Introduction, explain why, and point to the
> part of the document where the relationship of this document to the
> other RFCs is discussed. If this information is not in the document,
> explain why the WG considers it unnecessary.
> (17) Describe the Document Shepherd's review of the IANA considerations
> section, especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the
The document registers a new HTTP header field ("Forwarded") and also
creates a new subregistry for Forwarded header field parameters. This is
consistent with the body of the document.
> Confirm that all protocol extensions that the document makes
> are associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries.
> Confirm that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly
> Confirm that newly created IANA registries include a
> detailed specification of the initial contents for the registry, that
> allocations procedures for future registrations are defined, and a
> reasonable name for the new registry has been suggested (see RFC 5226).
> (18) List any new IANA registries that require Expert Review for future
> allocations. Provide any public guidance that the IESG would find
> useful in selecting the IANA Experts for these new registries.
The new registry created by the document specifies an RFC Required policy
and doesn't require Expert Review.
> (19) Describe reviews and automated checks performed by the Document
> Shepherd to validate sections of the document written in a formal
> language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc.
The ABNF verifies with BAP (after expanding of the list production
defined in HTTPBIS documents).