Updates to the CDDL grammar of RFC 8610
draft-ietf-cbor-update-8610-grammar-06

Received changes through RFC Editor sync (changed state to RFC, created became rfc relationship between draft-ietf-cbor-update-8610-grammar and RFC 9682, changed IESG state to RFC Published)

[Ballot comment]
Thanks to Gonzalo Salgueiro for his ARTART review.

I concur with Eric's comment about Appendix A.  Another option is just to remove the "normative" remark; the rest of the document's sections normatively effect the change you want, and Appendix A is just a summary of those.

I also concur with Deb and Mahesh's remark about the "updates"/bis question.

[Ballot comment]
Thanks to Gonzalo Salgueiro for his ARTART review.

I concur with Eric's comment about Appendix A.  Another option is just to remove the "normative" remark; the rest of the document's sections normatively effect the change you want, and Appendix A is just a summary of those.

[Ballot comment]
It would be nice of the Security Considerations could give some advise on preventing issues during the imminent "confusion" phase when mixed tools are used.

Is there really no security issue if any of these grammar modifications are involved with usernames, passwords or other parsed user input ?

[Ballot comment]

# Éric Vyncke, INT AD, comments for draft-ietf-cbor-update-8610-grammar-05

Thank you for the work put into this document.

Please find below some non-blocking COMMENT points (but replies would be appreciated even if only for my own education).

Special thanks to Christian Amsüss for the shepherd's detailed write-up including the WG consensus and the justification of the intended status.

I hope that this review helps to improve the document,

Regards,

-éric

# COMMENTS (non-blocking)

## Section 2.1

In figure 1 caption, "Old ABNF for ..." is vague. Suggest replacing it by "RFC 8610 ABNF for ..." Also applicable to other figures through the I-D. See also figure 7, which did it right IMHO.

The reader, like myself, has to guess that the two updates are limited to figures 2 and 4. Suggestion: make it clear that figure 2 updates the figure blabla of RFC 8610 and the same for figure 4.

## Section 2.2

I am far away from ABNF, but is the meaning of 'production" clear in `separate productions` ?

I read this section twice: it seems that no updates are specified to RFC 8610. If this is the case, then I wonder why having this section (either remove or move in appendix ?), else it is unclear what the updates are (please be clear).

## Section 3.1

`we extend the grammar` who is the "we" in the sentence (author, WG, IETF) ? Please be specific or use the passive voice. E.g., "The grammar, as in figure 11, is extended", which is also more assertive

## Section 4

`are not believed to create additional security considerations` while I appreciate the author's cautious phrasing, let's be more assertive.

## Appendix A

`This appendix is normative.` is highly unusual as appendixes are usually informative only. As section 2 is rather unclear about what are the updates, I suggest moving appendix A in the middle part of the I-D (even of RFC 8610 put it in appendix...) and also being clear that this section replace the appendix of RFC 8610.

[Ballot comment]
Thank you to Yaron Sheffer for his security area review.  Thank you also for the start of the discussion of update vs bis and I appreciate Carsten's response. I agree the plan should be to roll the updates into a bis draft sometime soon.  I don't know if there is a way to ensure this happens sometime in the near future.  Maybe a milestone on the working group charter?

(Via drafts-lastcall@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

IANA has completed its review of draft-ietf-cbor-update-8610-grammar-05, which is currently in Last Call, and has the following comments:

We understand that this document doesn't require any registry actions.

While it's often helpful for a document's IANA Considerations section to remain in place upon publication even if there are no actions, if the authors strongly prefer to remove it, we do not object.

If this assessment is not accurate, please respond as soon as possible.

For definitions of IANA review states, please see:

https://datatracker.ietf.org/help/state/draft/iana-review

Thank you,

David Dong
IANA Services Sr. Specialist

The following Last Call announcement was sent out (ends 2024-06-05):

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC: cbor-chairs@ietf.org, cbor@ietf.org, christian@amsuess.com, draft-ietf-cbor-update-8610-grammar@ietf.org, orie@transmute.industries
Reply-To: last-call@ietf.org
Sender:
Subject: Last Call:  (Updates to the CDDL grammar of RFC 8610) to Proposed Standard


The IESG has received a request from the Concise Binary Object Representation
Maintenance and Extensions WG (cbor) to consider the following document: -
'Updates to the CDDL grammar of RFC 8610'
  as Proposed Standard

The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits final
comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the
last-call@ietf.org mailing lists by 2024-06-05. Exceptionally, comments may
be sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the beginning
of the Subject line to allow automated sorting.

Abstract


  The Concise Data Definition Language (CDDL), as defined in RFC 8610
  and RFC 9165, provides an easy and unambiguous way to express
  structures for protocol messages and data formats that are
  represented in CBOR or JSON.

  The present document updates RFC 8610 by addressing errata and making
  other small fixes for the ABNF grammar defined for CDDL there.




The file can be obtained via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-cbor-update-8610-grammar/



No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D.

# Orie Steele, ART AD, comments for draft-ietf-cbor-update-8610-grammar-04
CC @OR13

This review is in the ["IETF Comments" Markdown format][ICMF].
You can use the [`ietf-comments` tool][ICT] to automatically convert this review into
individual GitHub issues, or using this [online validator](https://mnot.github.io/ietf-comments/).

Line numbers are generated with this:
https://author-tools.ietf.org/api/idnits?url=https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-cbor-update-8610-grammar-04.txt&submitcheck=True

## Comments

### Distinguishing ABNF, CDDL and EDN

```
241   This allows any non-C0 character in a comment, so this fragment
242   becomes possible:

244   foo = h'
245       43424F52 ; 'CBOR'
246       0A      ; LF, but don't use CR!
247   '

249   The current text is not unambiguously saying whether the three
250   apostrophes need to be escaped with a \ or not, as in:

252   foo = h'
253       43424F52 ; \'CBOR\'
254       0A      ; LF, but don\'t use CR!
255   '

257   ... which would be supported by the existing ABNF in [RFC8610].

```

I was confused by this section, especially with the comment after the examples that no changes are needed based on the normative updates to address Err6527.

Given `h'` is present in both EDN and CDDL, it might help to explain the fragment is valid CDDL or EDN. (I think its CDDL, not sure if this will be clear to others).

I also think some examples for Err6527 could be referenced here, instead of having no examples for Err6527 and having examples for Err6543, and this might end up being less confusing.

### Explain _Compatibility_

```
108   _Compatibility_:  errata fix
```

```
287   _Compatibility_:  backward (not forward)
```

Where does this convention come from?

Is there a reference that will make this repeated text more meaningful to the reader?

Will there ever be instances of `forward (not backward)` ?


### Normative reference to CDDL Modules?

```
300   With CDDL modules [I-D.ietf-cbor-cddl-modules], CDDL files can also
301   include directives, and these might be the source of all the rules
302   that ultimately make up the module created by the file.  Any other
303   rule content in the file has to be available for directive
304   processing, making the requirement for at least one rule cumbersome.

306   Therefore, we extend the grammar as in Figure 9 and make the
307   existence of at least one rule a semantic constraint, to be fulfilled
308   after processing of all directives.
```

Is there utility in this update assuming CDDL modules never happens?

Should `I-D.ietf-cbor-cddl-modules` be a normative reference?

### Is the Updated Collected ABNF for CDDL normative?

```
459 Appendix A.  Updated Collected ABNF for CDDL

461   This appendix provides the full ABNF from [RFC8610] with the updates
462   applied in the present document.
```

https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8610#appendix-B states: "This appendix is normative."

## Document History

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?

  The consensus backing the document was widespread at adoption time (adopting a bundle of documents), and became more quiet up to the WGLC. That fits the nature of the document: it is "boring" in the sense that it packs up errata items and small fixes.

2. Was there controversy about particular points, or were there decisions where
  the consensus was particularly rough?

  No controversial points.

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 statements ever heard against it.

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)?

  The implementation at https://github.com/cabo/cddlc/ supports both the new mechanisms and follows the errata resolution.
  Other implementations have not taken up the changes, but are often not even in a position to need them. (For example, the cddl Rust crate and the cddl Node.js implementation use more lax rules for escaped strings anyway; the Node.js implementation does not support generics in the first place).

## Additional Reviews

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 document has no outside interactions other than through CDDL implementations.

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.

  The only formal language used is ABNF, which is well understood by the authors.

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]?

  No YANG module present.

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.

  The ABNF provided in the appendix passes the tests at https://author-tools.ietf.org/abnf.

  The snippets are largely proper subsets of the collected rules (and thus were not checked standalone) -- except for the one in 3.2, which passes in the right context (as it adds an alternative to a rule).

## Document Shepherd Checks

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?

  The document is ready.

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?

    If anything, this falls into the ART review expertise for touching ABNF and protocol versioning.
    As the document at its core addresses issues of protocol evolution and ABNF, I do not regard an extra review as necessary.

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?

    The document is on the standards track for proposed standard (because it updates RFC8610).

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.

    The author has confirmed at https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/cbor/xeXNsJ2ZqTcfuQzvDKw5OegA70E that he is "not personally aware of any patent claims that would read on this specification".

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.

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.)

    Most idnits warnings are false positives. The outdated reference to draft-ietf-cbor-cddl-modules-01 is moot, given there will likely be another update to that document anyway before this document is published.

    Since unaddressed errata are now addressed in -02, the only item on the check list is the lack of an Implementation Status section (but now it'd be late to add one anyway. See also item 4).

15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the [IESG
    Statement on Normative and Informative References][16].

    Reference normativity is nominal.

16. List any normative references that are not freely available to anyone. Did
    the community have sufficient access to review any such normative
    references?

    All references are public (IETF documents).

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.

    There are no downrefs.

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?

    All normative references are published.

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.

    It updates RFC8610 as indicated on every page by virtue of being in the title.

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]).

    IANA considerations are empty as they should be.

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.

    Nothing to do there.

[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/

## Document History

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?

  The consensus backing the document was widespread at adoption time (adopting a bundle of documents), and became more quiet up to the WGLC. That fits the nature of the document: it is "boring" in the sense that it packs up errata items and small fixes.

2. Was there controversy about particular points, or were there decisions where
  the consensus was particularly rough?

  No controversial points.

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 statements ever heard against it.

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)?

  The implementation at https://github.com/cabo/cddlc/ supports both the new mechanisms and follows the errata resolution.
  Other implementations have not taken up the changes, but are often not even in a position to need them. (For example, the cddl Rust crate and the cddl Node.js implementation use more lax rules for escaped strings anyway; the Node.js implementation does not support generics in the first place).

## Additional Reviews

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 document has no outside interactions other than through CDDL implementations.

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.

  The only formal language used is ABNF, which is well understood by the authors.

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]?

  No YANG module present.

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.

  The ABNF provided in the appendix passes the tests at https://author-tools.ietf.org/abnf.

  The snippets are largely proper subsets of the collected rules (and thus were not checked standalone) -- except for the one in 3.2, which passes in the right context (as it adds an alternative to a rule).

## Document Shepherd Checks

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?

  The document is ready.

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?

    If anything, this falls into the ART review expertise for touching ABNF and protocol versioning.
    As the document at its core addresses issues of protocol evolution and ABNF, I do not regard an extra review as necessary.

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?

    The document is on the standards track for proposed standard (because it updates RFC8610).

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.

    The author has confirmed at https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/cbor/xeXNsJ2ZqTcfuQzvDKw5OegA70E that he is "not personally aware of any patent claims that would read on this specification".

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.

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.)

    Most idnits warnings are false positives. The outdated reference to draft-ietf-cbor-cddl-modules-01 is moot, given there will likely be another update to that document anyway before this document is published.

    Since unaddressed errata are now addressed in -02, the only item on the check list is the lack of an Implementation Status section (but now it'd be late to add one anyway. See also item 4).

15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the [IESG
    Statement on Normative and Informative References][16].

    Reference normativity is nominal.

16. List any normative references that are not freely available to anyone. Did
    the community have sufficient access to review any such normative
    references?

    All references are public (IETF documents).

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.

    There are no downrefs.

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?

    All normative references are published.

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.

    It updates RFC8610 as indicated on every page by virtue of being in the title.

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]).

    IANA considerations are empty as they should be.

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.

    Nothing to do there.

[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/

# Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents

## Document History

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?

  The consensus backing the document was widespread at adoption time (adopting a bundle of documents), and became more quiet up to the WGLC. That fits the nature of the document: it is "boring" in the sense that it packs up errata items and small fixes.

2. Was there controversy about particular points, or were there decisions where
  the consensus was particularly rough?

  No controversial points.

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 statements ever heard against it.

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)?

  The implementation at https://github.com/cabo/cddlc/ supports both the new mechanisms and follows the errata resolution.
  Other implementations have not taken up the changes, but are often not even in a position to need them. (For example, the cddl Rust crate and the cddl Node.js implementation use more lax rules for escaped strings anyway; the Node.js implementation does not support generics in the first place).

## Additional Reviews

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 document has no outside interactions other than through CDDL implementations.

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.

  The only formal language used is ABNF, which is well understood by the authors.

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]?

  No YANG module present.

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.

  The ABNF provided in the appendix passes the tests at https://author-tools.ietf.org/abnf.

  The snippets are largely proper subsets of the collected rules (and thus were not checked standalone) -- except for the one in 3.2, which passes in the right context (as it adds an alternative to a rule).

## Document Shepherd Checks

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?

  The document is ready. Writing clarity suffers in one place (subsection heading inside 2.2) from an HTML rendering issue, but that is expected to be fixed during publication.

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?

    If anything, this falls into the ART review expertise for touching ABNF and protocol versioning.
    As the document at its core addresses issues of protocol evolution and ABNF, I do not regard an extra review as necessary.

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?

    The document is on the standards track for proposed standard (because it updates RFC8610).

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.

    The author has confirmed at https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/cbor/xeXNsJ2ZqTcfuQzvDKw5OegA70E that he is "not personally aware of any patent claims that would read on this specification".

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.

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.)

    The idnits warnings are false positives.

    Since unaddressed errata are now addressed in -02, the only item on the check list is the lack of an Implementation Status section (but now it'd be late to add one anyway. See also item 4).

15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the [IESG
    Statement on Normative and Informative References][16].

    Reference normativity is nominal.

16. List any normative references that are not freely available to anyone. Did
    the community have sufficient access to review any such normative
    references?

    All references are public (IETF documents).

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.

    There are no downrefs.

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?

    All normative references are published.

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.

    It updates RFC8610 as indicated on every page by virtue of being in the title.

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]).

    IANA considerations are empty as they should be.

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.

    Nothing to do there.

[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/

# Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents

## Document History

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?

  The consensus backing the document was widespread at adoption time (adopting a bundle of documents), and became more quiet up to the WGLC. That fits the nature of the document: it is "boring" in the sense that it packs up errata items and small fixes.

2. Was there controversy about particular points, or were there decisions where
  the consensus was particularly rough?

  No controversial points.

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 statements ever heard against it.

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)?

  The implementation at https://github.com/cabo/cddlc/ supports both the new mechanisms and follows the errata resolution.
  Other implementations have not taken up the changes, but are often not even in a position to need them. (For example, the cddl Rust crate and the cddl Node.js implementation use more lax rules for escaped strings anyway; the Node.js implementation does not support generics in the first place).

## Additional Reviews

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 document has no outside interactions other than through CDDL implementations.

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.

  The only formal language used is ABNF, which is well understood by the authors.

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]?

  No YANG module present.

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.

  The ABNF provided in the appendix passes the tests at https://author-tools.ietf.org/abnf.

  The snippets are largely proper subsets of the collected rules (and thus were not checked standalone) -- except for the one in 3.2, which passes in the right context (as it adds an alternative to a rule).

## Document Shepherd Checks

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?

  The document is ready. Writing clarity suffers in one place (subsection heading inside 2.2) from an HTML rendering issue, but that is expected to be fixed during publication.

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?

    If anything, this falls into the ART review expertise for touching ABNF and protocol versioning.
    As the document at its core addresses issues of protocol evolution and ABNF, I do not regard an extra review as necessary.

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?

    The document is on the standards track for proposed standard (because it updates RFC8610).

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.

    The author has confirmed at https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/cbor/xeXNsJ2ZqTcfuQzvDKw5OegA70E that he is "not personally aware of any patent claims that would read on this specification".

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.

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.)

    The idnits warnings are false positives.

    Since unaddressed errata are now addressed in -02, the only item on the check list is the lack of an Implementation Status section (but now it'd be late to add one anyway. See also item 4).

15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the [IESG
    Statement on Normative and Informative References][16].

    Reference normativity is nominal.

16. List any normative references that are not freely available to anyone. Did
    the community have sufficient access to review any such normative
    references?

    All references are public (IETF documents).

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.

    There are no downrefs.

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?

    All normative references are published.

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.

    It updates RFC8610 as indicated on every page by virtue of being in the title.

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]).

    IANA considerations are empty as they should be.

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.

    Nothing to do there.

[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/

# Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents

*This version is dated 4 July 2022.*

Open points are still on item 14, which will be addressed in -02.

## Document History

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?

  The consensus backing the document was widespread at adoption time (adopting a bundle of documents), and became more quiet up to the WGLC. That fits the nature of the document: it is "boring" in the sense that it packs up errata items and small fixes.

2. Was there controversy about particular points, or were there decisions where
  the consensus was particularly rough?

  No controversial points.

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 statements ever heard against it.

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)?

  The implementation at https://github.com/cabo/cddlc/ supports both the new mechanisms and follows the errata resolution.
  Other implementations have not taken up the changes, but are often not even in a position to need them. (For example, the cddl Rust crate and the cddl Node.js implementation use more lax rules for escaped strings anyway; the Node.js implementation does not support generics in the first place).

## Additional Reviews

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 document has no outside interactions other than through CDDL implementations.

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.

  The only formal language used is ABNF, which is well understood by the authors.

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]?

  No YANG module present.

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.

  The ABNF provided in the appendix passes the tests at https://author-tools.ietf.org/abnf.

  The snippets are largely replicated in there (and thus were not checked standalone) -- except for the one in 3.2, for which an issue is open in https://github.com/cbor-wg/update-8610-grammar/issues/3.

## Document Shepherd Checks

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?

  The document is ready. Writing clarity suffers in one place (subsection heading inside 2.2) from an HTML rendering issue, but that is expected to be fixed during publication.

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?

    If anything, this falls into the ART review expertise for touching ABNF and protocol versioning.
    As the document at its core addresses issues of protocol evolution and ABNF, I do not regard an extra review as necessary.

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?

    The document is on the standards track for proposed standard (because it updates RFC8610).

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.

    The author has confirmed at https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/cbor/xeXNsJ2ZqTcfuQzvDKw5OegA70E that he is "not personally aware of any patent claims that would read on this specification".

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.

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.)

    The idnits warnings are false positives.

    The rest of the check list almost passes; notable points that were considered are unaddressed errata (verified in https://github.com/cbor-wg/update-8610-grammar/issues/5), and the lack of an Implementation Status section (but now it'd be late to add one anyway).

15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the [IESG
    Statement on Normative and Informative References][16].

    Reference normativity is nominal.

16. List any normative references that are not freely available to anyone. Did
    the community have sufficient access to review any such normative
    references?

    All references are public (IETF documents).

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.

    There are no downrefs.

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?

    All normative references are published.

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.

    It updates RFC8610 as indicated on every page by virtue of being in the title.

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]).

    IANA considerations are empty as they should be.

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.

    Nothing to do there.

[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/

This is going into a joint WGLC of  draft-ietf-cbor-edn-literals and draft-ietf-cbor-update-8610-grammar; both will end on Monday November 6th (the Monday of IETF118).

Please read the document, and let us know what you think of it. This is a very housekeeping document, so notes along the line of "I don't use the ABNF but do see that we need this done" are particularly valuable on this kind of document, as it has barely received any visible attention that'd be needed for the shepherding process.