Shepherd writeup
rfc8710-04

More readable here:
http://jaimejim.github.io/temp/draft-ietf-core-multipart-ct.html

##Status Multipart CT

<span id="summary"></span>
###Summary draft-ietf-core-multipart-ct-03

[Multipart Content-Format for
CoAP](https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-core-multipart-ct-03)

The purpose of the draft is to define how to combine representations of various
media types into a single message. The draft explains how the encoding is made,
which is in form of a collection of CBOR entries with the various media types.
For example: `[42, h'0123456789abcdef', 0, h'3031323334']`

multipart ct can be very useful when observing resources of which no
representation is available at the time of the observation. The coap server may
use the `application/multipart-core` media type in order to maintain the same
Content-Format until the actual response (2.05, 2.03) is produced.

----

<span id="shepherd-writeup"></span>
## Shepherd Writeup

###Summary

Document Shepherd: Jaime Jiménez, <jaime.jimenez@ericsson.com>

Area Director: Alexey Melnikov, <aamelnikov@fastmail.fm>

This memo defines application/multipart-core, an application-independent
media-type that can be used to combine representations of zero or more
different media types into a single message, such as a CoAP request or response
body, with minimal framing overhead, each along with a CoAP Content-Format
identifier.

The document is intended for Standards Track.

###Review and Consensus

The document has gone through multiple expert reviews and has been discussed on
multiple IETF meetings. Before the last IETF the WGLC was completed.

###Intellectual Property

Each author has stated that they do not have direct, personal knowledge of any
IPR related to this document. I am not aware of any IPR discussion about this
document on the CoRE WG.

###Checklist

* [x] Does the shepherd stand behind the document and think the document is
ready for publication? * [x] Is the correct RFC type indicated in the title
page header? * [x] Is the abstract both brief and sufficient, and does it stand
alone as a brief summary? * [x] Is the intent of the document accurately and
adequately explained in the introduction? * [x] Have all required formal
reviews (MIB Doctor, Media Type, URI, etc.) been requested and/or completed?
`Mail sent to media-types@iana.org, waiting for answer. New entry
multipart-core needs verification by media-types@iana.org.` * [x] Has the
shepherd performed automated checks -- idnits (see
http://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts Checklist), checks of
BNF rules, XML code and schemas, MIB definitions, and so on -- and determined
that the document passes the tests? `no issues found` * [x] Has each author
stated that their direct, personal knowledge of any IPR related to this
document has already been disclosed, in conformance with BCPs 78 and 79? * [x]
Have all references within this document been identified as either normative or
informative, and does the shepherd agree with how they have been classified?
`Both seem correct to me` * [x] Are all normative references made to documents
that are ready for advancement and are otherwise in a clear state? * [x] If
publication of this document changes the status of any existing RFCs, are those
RFCs listed on the title page header, and are the changes listed in the
abstract and discussed (explained, not just mentioned) in the introduction?
`Does not apply` * [x] If this is a "bis" document, have all of the errata been
considered? `Does not apply`

* **IANA** Considerations:

        * [x] Are the IANA Considerations clear and complete? Remember that
        IANA have to understand unambiguously what's being requested, so they
        can perform the required actions. `The new application/multipart-core
        media type seems well defined. So is TBD1, which is the requested
        Content-Format, as shown on section 5.2.` * [x] Are all protocol
        extensions that the document makes associated with the appropriate
        reservations in IANA registries? * [x] Are all IANA registries referred
        to by their exact names (check them in http://www.iana.org/protocols/
        to be sure)? * [x] Have you checked that any registrations made by this
        document correctly follow the policies and procedures for the
        appropriate registries? * [x] For registrations that require expert
        review (policies of Expert Review or Specification Required), have you
        or the working group had any early review done, to make sure the
        requests are ready for last call? * [x] For any new registries that
        this document creates, has the working group actively chosen the
        allocation procedures and policies and discussed the alternatives? `no
        new registries` * [x]  Have reasonable registry names been chosen (that
        will not be confused with those of other registries), and have the
        initial contents and valid value ranges been clearly specified?

Back