Skip to main content

Shepherd writeup
draft-ietf-cbor-file-magic-12

(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 aims to become a Proposed Standard. It does have characteristics
that would also indicate Informational (it is registering code points in FCFS
regions of IANA registries), but we anticipate that this mechanism will be used
and referenced in future normative documents, thus going for PS.

(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:

This document defines an on-disk format for CBOR data items that is friendly to
common on-disk recognition systems such as the Unix file(1) command. It
describes methods for the different cases of tagging CBOR objects, CBOR streams
and for data transported in CoAP messages.

Working Group Summary:

The process through the WG was unremarkable, with small controversies at
bikeshedding level sorted out during interims.

Document Quality:

Based on this document, OpenSWAN has allocated CBOR tags and is using them;
updates to the file magic database are being prepared. The document was
authored and reviewed by the designated experts for CBOR tag allocations.

Personnel:

Christian Amsüss is Document Shepherd, Francesca Palombini is Responsible Area
Director.

(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.

The review found some inconsistencies or vagueness in areas that were edited
relatively recently; the concerns were addresse swiftly, and the shepherd has
no further comments on -10. Three single-word changes are still outstanding,
but minor enough that they are not expected to impact the IESG review.

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

No. There have been few on-list reviews, but much collaboration inside the WG
during interim meetings as documented in their minutes.

(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.

File formats and file type recognition falls into the broad ART area expertise;
review has been solicited, provided by Bernard Aboba (see
<https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/cbor/5ZgOxVcITa6ACe8hAeMEH3gH2KY>), and
addressed in the later versions of the document (eg. the switch to Proposed
Standard).

(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?

No 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?

The authors are not personally aware of any patent claims that would read on
this specification.

(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document?

No IPR has been disclosed to date.

(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?

It's a small working group, but the document is supported and understood by a
large portion. (Looking at the list interactions and interim minutes, most of
that is visible from adoption time; in later stages discussions were mostly
about details more relevant on a quality-of-document level than on a
consensus-on-what-we-do level and thus involved fewer vocal people).

(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.)

No.

(11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this document.

The tools complain about non-ASCII characters and reference mismatches (on
RFC8949 / STD94); both appear to be in order in the produced documents.

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

No formal review criteria apply.

(13) Have all references within this document been identified as either
normative or informative?

Yes; in particular, none of the informative references are required to
understand when implementing this document.

(14) Are there normative references to documents that are not ready for
advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state?

No.

(15) Are there downward normative references (see RFC 3967)?

No.

(16) Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs?

No.

(17) 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 protocol extensions that the document makes are
associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm that
any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. 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 8126).

The IANA considerations describe one tag that has been allocated already from a
draft; that description does not match verbatim any more (the registry can be
updated at release time). Allocations are consistent with the relevant sections
of the text. The registry is not identified by its full name, the authors will
refine it together with any updates resulting from IESG review.

(18) List any new IANA registries that require Expert Review for future
allocations.

All allocations happen in FCFS areas.

(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, YANG modules, etc.

The CDDL snippets in the code validated on https://cddl.anweiss.tech/

(20) If the document contains a YANG module, has the module been checked with
any of the recommended validation tools
(https://trac.ietf.org/trac/ops/wiki/yang-review-tools) 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
RFC8342?

No YANG modules are present.
Back