(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?
The type of RFC being requested is standard track. This document is
the reference specification for the IANA registration of Object
Identifiers. This document provides a stable reference for other
standardization bodies. The WG went for the document being Standard
track for this document, but could be informational if the AD prefers
it.
(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
The Concise Binary Object Representation (CBOR, draft-ietf-cbor-
7049bis) is a data format whose design goals include the possibility
of extremely small code size, fairly small message size, and
extensibility without the need for version negotiation.
The present document defines CBOR tags for object identifiers (OIDs).
It is intended as the reference document for the IANA registration of
the CBOR tags so defined.
Working Group Summary
There was working group consensus on publishing this document, no
point was particularly contentious.
Document Quality
There is no existing implementations of the specifications, as far as
I can tell. A number of WG participants have stated they have read and
reviewed the document. No expert review was requested.
Personnel
Christian Amsüss is the Document Shepherd (taking over from Francesca
Palombini).
Barry Leiba is the 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 Document Shepherd has reviewed the document and finds it ready
for publication. Moreover, the Document Shepherd has kept track
of the several reviews of the documents and made sure all comments
were addressed.
(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or
breadth of the reviews that have been performed?
No concerns.
(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 broader reviews or from a particular areas are needed.
(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.
The Document Shepherd has no such concerns or issues.
(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 current author (Carsten Bormann) is not aware of any relevant
claims.
We have failed so far to reach Sean Leonard (who was recently moved
from Author to Contributor) despite independent attempts. I do not
expect IPR related trouble, but that contributor's confirmation is
lacking.
(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document?
If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR
disclosures.
No.
(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 working group consensus behind the document is solid, according
to WG last calls, in room feeling during several meetings, and off
line discussion.
(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 threats of appeal or extreme discontent have been made public.
(11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this
document. (See https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts
Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be
thorough.
There is one downref (see below); other than that, all the tools
report was checked and is false positive:
* OIDs are misidentified as IP addresses
* CBOR data is misidentified as references.
Some reports are what I believe to be a discrepancy between the tools
and the xmlrfc version:
* The non-ASCII characters are in the author's affiliation and in
cited documents.
* The recognized future date is the expiry date.
* Code detection triggers even though there is no executable code
around.
(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review
criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.
No such criteria apply.
(13) Have all references within this document been identified as
either normative or informative?
Yes.
(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?
No.
(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.
The reference to RFC 6256 (Using Self-Delimiting Numeric Values in
Protocols) is a downref to an Informational document. This draft is
the first document to normatively reference that.
(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.
No RFCs status will be changed by publication of this document.
(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).
IANA registration of several CBOR tags and CDDL control operators is
requested. The registration is appropriate.
(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.
No such new registries.
(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.
No automated checks were done.
(We might consider adding such mechanisms for CDDL, though).