Skip to main content

Shepherd writeup

(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 is targeted to become a Proposed Standard. This extension to the
Received header field is intended for widespread use and thus Proposed Standard
is suitable.

    (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 registers a trace field clause for use in indicating
   transitions between handling queues or processing states, including
   enacting inter- and intra-host message transitions.  This might
   include message quarantining, mailing list moderation, timed
   delivery, queueing for further analysis, content conversion, or other
   similar causes, as well as optionally identifying normal handling
   queues. This allows inspection of the trace information to reveal that
   the cause for a time gap in trace fields was an imposed delay rather
   than one caused by transient technical difficulties.

    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

The WG discussed appropriate IANA procedure for the new registry
created by the document. The WG was deciding between Expert Review
and FCFS. Consensus was a rough on this one.

Otherwise the document is really non controversial.

    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 is at least one existing implementation of this specification. At least
two more are planned.

No special purpose review (such as Media Type review) is needed for this


       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 performed a review similar to the one I  used to do for AD sponsoring a
document. I checked ABNF (manually and using BAP) and also verified nits
using id-nits.

    (4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or
    breadth of the reviews that have been performed?


    (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.

No. This document had sufficient reviews from the email community, which
is the main community this document is targeting.

    (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.

No specific concerns.

    (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.

Yes, the authors confirmed that they don't need to file any IPR disclosures.

    (8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document?
    If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR

No IPR was 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.)

There were no threats of appeal.

    (11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this
    document. (See and the Internet-Drafts
    Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be

id-nits reports no nits.

    (12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review
    criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.

This document doesn't specify a MIB, media type or URI.

    (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?

All 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.


    (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 creates a new registry. The IANA Considerations section is
consistent with that.

    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,


    allocations procedures for future registrations are defined,


    and a reasonable name for the new registry has been suggested (see RFC


    (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 document 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 document contains ABNF that was verified with BAP. Some ABNF rules are
imported from RFC 5322 and RFC 2045.