# Document Shepherd Writeup for draft-ietf-core-cf-reg-update
Document status: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-core-cf-reg-update/
Document Shepherd: Marco Tiloca <marco.tiloca@ri.se>
Area Director: Francesca Palombini <francesca.palombini@ericsson.com>
## Document Summary
This document updates the "CoAP Content-Formats" IANA registry originally
defined by RFC 7252, in order to mitigate the risk of unintentional or
malicious errors when registering new entries.
This is motivated by the non-trivial task of correctly assessing the validity
of a requested registration, particularly for registry range that uses the
"First Come First Served" registration policy (RFC 8126) and therefore relies
only on checks performed by IANA personnel.
In particular, this document updates the registration procedures for different
ranges of the registry, by introducing a review procedure to be performed for
most of those, and allowing the registration of temporary Content-Format
identifiers for some ranges of the registry. Finally, this document adds a new
"Media Type" column to the registry.
In so doing, this document updates RFC 7252.
## 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 WG has reached broad agreement and strong consensus on this document.
2. Was there controversy about particular points, or were there decisions where
the consensus was particularly rough?
There has been no controversy. On the contrary, the document could also
build on input and guidance from IANA personnel, which shaped part of its
content and reassured about the overall direction.
The document was welcome from the start, its development has been swift,
collaborative, and smooth, and it has gone through multiple expert reviews.
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.
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 recommends) or elsewhere (where)?
Not applicable, as the document does not specify a protocol.
### 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.
No reviews have been deemed necessary from external organizations regarding
the updates to the IANA registry.
It is already the case that applications and technologies for constrained
RESTful environments take advantage of the IANA registry for coordinating on
the numeric identifiers of CoAP Content-Formats. The registry updates
specified in this document mitigate the risk of unintentional or malicious
errors when registering new entries.
Consistently with the registry updates made by this document, the Designated
Experts performing the review procedure (when required), or the IANA
personnel for defined simple cases, will be responsible to assess the
correctness of registration requests of new CoAP Content-Format identifiers.
Since the inception of the document, its authors have had direct
interactions with IANA personnel. This resulted in effective feedback and
input to incorporate in the document, thereby ensuring that the goal of the
proposed updates can be effectively achieved.
During the Working Group Last Call, the IANABIS Working Group was also
informed, highlighting that this document could serve as an interesting case
study for the work being done in IANABIS.
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.
Not applicable.
7. If the document contains a YANG module, has the final version of the module
been checked with any of the recommended validation 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 RFC
8342?
Not applicable.
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.
Not applicable.
### 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 Shepherd fully supports the document and believes it to be ready.
10. Several IETF Areas have assembled lists of common issues that their
reviewers encounter. For which areas have such issues been identified and
addressed? For which does this still need to happen in subsequent reviews?
None of the common issues from the IETF areas has been identified as
applicable to this document.
11. What type of RFC publication is being requested on the IETF stream (Best
Current Practice, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard, Informational,
Experimental or Historic)? Why is this the proper type of RFC? Do all
Datatracker state attributes correctly reflect this intent?
The intended RFC status is Proposed Standard, as reflected by the
Datatracker state for this document.
This is deemed appropriate for the content and contribution of this
document, i.e., updating the registration procedures and structure of an
existing IANA registry, by formally updating the Proposed Standard RFC 7252
that originally defined that registry and which registration policies to
use.
12. Have reasonable efforts been made to remind all authors of the intellectual
property rights (IPR) disclosure obligations described in BCP 79? 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.
Each author has stated that they do not have direct, personal knowledge of
any IPR related to this document. The Shepherd is not aware of any IPR
either, and no IPR discussion about this document has occurred in the CoRE
WG.
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 is not enough; please review the "Content Guidelines" on authors.ietf.org.
No I-D nits are left; the few warnings and comments raised by the idnits
tool are actually fine.
The document complies with the "Content Guidelines" on authors.ietf.org.
15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the IESG
Statement on Normative and Informative References.
References are listed in the appropriate category.
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 the normative references are freely available.
17. Are there any normative downward references (see RFC 3967 and BCP 97) that
are not already listed in the DOWNREF registry? If so, list them.
This document does not include any such normative reference.
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?
This document does not include any such normative reference.
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.
Yes, this document intends to update RFC 7252 (if approved), explaining how
a registry defined in RFC 7252 will be updated in different respects.
This document reflects this update in the title page, in the abstract, and
in the introduction.
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).
The contribution of this document is in fact a set of updates to the "CoAP
Content-Formats" IANA registry, under the "Constrained RESTful Environments
(CoRE) Parameters" registry group. Hence, the "IANA Considerations" section
is the core content of this document.
The "IANA Considerations" section is complete and consistent with the
document body. The section well defines the updates to the registry, which
are appropriately organized in different subsections.
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.
This document does not define new IANA registries, but it updates an
existing one.
The defined updates include amendments to the different ranges of the
registry, and the introduction of a review procedure to be performed for
new registrations to most of those ranges. Such a review procedure is well
defined, with clear and appropriate instructions to the Designated Experts.
The original version of the registry includes a range that uses the
registration policy "Expert Review", and Designated Experts are therefore
already assigned to the registry. The registry updates defined in this
document is not expected to impact the current set of Designated Experts
already assigned to the registry.