Shepherd writeup
rfc8007-15

(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 requests the Proposed Standard track. This is
   appropriate given it defines a full CDNI interface. It is indicated
   in the title page 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

   This document describes the part of the CDN Interconnection Control
   Interface that allows a CDN to trigger activity in an interconnected
   CDN that is configured to deliver content on its behalf.  The
   upstream CDN can use this mechanism to request that the downstream
   CDN pre-positions metadata or content, or that it invalidates or
   purges metadata or content.  The upstream CDN can monitor the status
   of activity that it has triggered in the downstream CDN.

Working Group Summary

   There is a strong consensus in support of this document.

Document Quality

   The document is well written and of good quality. It has been
   reviewed by multiple active members of the working group. It has also
   been through an early Appsdir review, with specific focus on JSON
   specification and HTTP. 

Personnel

   Document Shepherd: Francois Le Faucheur
   Responsible Area Director: Barry Leiba

(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 shepherd did a review of an earlier version of the document and
   there has only small changes since. The shepherd feels the document
   is ready for publication.

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

   The shepherd does not have concerns about the level of reviews 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.

   The document needed review by JSON experts, but this review has
   already been conducted as part of an early AppsDir review (Carsten
   Bormann).


(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 shepherd does not have any concern or issue with this document.


(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 two authors have explicitly confirmed the above.

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

   No IPR disclosure have been filed referencing that 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?   

   There is strong consensus in the working group on this document. It
   has been discussed clearly with many supporting the corresponding
   approach and none objecting to it.


(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 one has threaten to appeal. In fact noone has even objected.

(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 no remaining ID nits.


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

   The document was subject to a JSON expert review by Carsten Bormann.
   The document no longer defines any media-type, since it now simply
   uses the single CDNI Media Type specified in
   draft-ietf-cdni-media-type that has already been reviewed and
   approved by the IESG.


(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?

   All normative references are already RFC.

(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 downward references.


(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.

   Publication of this document will not change the status of any
   document. This is correctly identified in the title page header.

(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 5226).

   This document defines entries in an IANA registry that was created by
   draft-ietf-cdni-media-type that has already been reviewed and
   approved by the IESG.  The entries defined in the registry match what
   is used in the body of the document.


(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 does not define any new registry.


(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.

   This is not applicable.
Back