# draft-ietf-core-stateless-04.txt shepherd writeup
Carsten Bormann 2020-03-05
(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 is a standards-track update to RFC 7252 (CoAP) and RFC 8323
(CoAP-TCP/TLS), updating the semantics of the TKL field to support
extended tokens, and defining how to use these for placing requests
with reduced state-keeping requirements.
(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:
This is a standards-track update to RFC 7252 (CoAP) and RFC 8323
(CoAP-TCP/TLS), updating the semantics of the TKL (token length) field
to support extended-length tokens, and defining how to use these for
placing requests with reduced state-keeping requirements.
Working Group Summary:
There was considerable trepidation about touching the basic format of
CoAP messages, but there is now consensus that the present approach is
minimally invasive and a good way to solve the requirement for
reducing per-request state in certain cases, as required e.g. by 6TiSCH.
The document has received reviews both from core CoRE members and from
members of the communities that intend to make use of it.
Implementation efforts likely will be focused initially on the environments
using the dependent documents; we have not surveyed that yet.
Who is the Document Shepherd? Carsten Bormann
Who is the Responsible Area Director? Alexey Melnikov
(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 document has received detailed reviews by the shepherd in several
of its stages, including the current one.
(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or
breadth of the reviews that have been performed?
No, see Document Quality above.
(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
There are both security and operational implications, which have been
reviewed by WG members with backgrounds in these spaces and are
addressed sufficiently in the document.
(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.
No special concerns.
(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?
Klaus Hartke has confirmed that he is not aware of any patent claim
relating to the draft.
(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If
so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR
(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?
Details of token use being a somewhat arcane corner of the
specification, I would say that those WG members who are aware of
those do understand and support this specification.
(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.)
(11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this
document. (See http://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the
Internet-Drafts Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this
check needs to be thorough.
(No ID nits found.)
(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review
criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI
(13) Have all references within this document been identified as
either normative or informative?
Yes. One could argue whether the reference to RFC 4107 should not
better be informative.
(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?
(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.
(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.
Yes: An updates tag is being used for RFC 7252 and 8323. The abstract
mentions this, but does not quite explain why. The introduction does
explain why, but is not exposing this in a perfectly searchable way.
(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
The IANA Considerations exercise the "CoAP Signaling Option Numbers"
registry within the "CoRE Parameters" registry, in the obvious way.
(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.
(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, YANG modules,
(20) If the document contains a YANG module, has the module been
checked with any of the recommended validation tools
(https://trac.ietf.org/trac/ops/wiki/yang-review-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 RFC8342?