CoRE Target Attributes Registry
draft-ietf-core-target-attr-06

Received changes through RFC Editor sync (changed state to RFC, created became rfc relationship between draft-ietf-core-target-attr and RFC 9423, changed IESG state to RFC Published)

[Ballot comment]
I concur with the comments from both Paul and Roman.  I suggest to satisfy Roman's concern that the "updates" notation be removed; this updates a registry created by RFC 9176, but doesn't actually update that document.

[Ballot comment]
I'm not sure why the IANA registration policy for this new registry is not "Specification Required",
as the advise to the Designated Expert is:

      The expert is also instructed to direct the registrant to provide a specification (Section 4.6 of [BCP26]),
      but can make exceptions, for instance when a specification is not available at the time of registration but
      is likely forthcoming.

Also "provide a specification" [to the Designated Expert] could be seen as "provided only to the DE, but not for publication".

It seems simpler and more common to just set the policy to Specification Required.

[Ballot comment]
Thank you to Christian Huitema for the SECDIR review.

I have no comment on the substance of the document.

Given that this document is updating a proposed standard (PS) status document (RFC9176) and the primary users of this registry appear to be other PS documents, I believe that this document should also be published with PS status.

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

The IANA Functions Operator has completed its review of draft-ietf-core-target-attr-05. If any part of this review is inaccurate, please let us know.

The IANA Functions Operator has a question about the first action requested in the IANA Considerations section of this document.

The IANA Functions Operator understands that, upon approval of this document, there are two actions which we must complete.

A new registry is to be created called the Target Attributes registry. The new registry will be located in the Constrained RESTful Environments (CoRE) Parameters registry group located at:

https://www.iana.org/assignments/core-parameters/

The new registry will be maintained via Expert Review as defined in RFC8126. Entries in the new registry consist of an Attribute Name, a Brief Description, the Change Controller, and a Reference. There are initial registrations in the new registry as follows:

Attribute Name Brief description Change Controller Reference
---------------+----------------+------------------+--------------
href reserved (not useful as target attribute name) IESG [RFC6690]
anchor reserved (not useful as target attribute name) IESG [RFC6690]
rel reserved (not useful as target attribute name) IESG [RFC6690]
rev reserved (not useful as target attribute name) IESG [RFC6690]
hreflang (Web Linking) IESG [RFC8288]
media (Web Linking) IESG [RFC8288]
title (Web Linking) IESG [RFC8288]
type (Web Linking) IESG [RFC8288]
rt resource type IESG [RFC6690, Section 3.1]
if interface description IESG [RFC6690, Section 3.2]
sz maximum size estimate IESG [RFC6690, Section 3.3]
ct Content-Format hint IESG [RFC7252, Section 7.2.1]
obs observable resource IESG [RFC7641, Section 6]
hct HTTP-CoAP URI mapping template IESG [RFC8075, Section 5.5]
osc hint: resource only accessible using OSCORE IESG [RFC8613, Section 9]
ep Endpoint Name (with rt="core.rd-ep") IESG [RFC9176, Section 9.3]
d Sector (with rt="core.rd-ep") IESG [RFC9176, Section 9.3]
base Registration Base URI (with rt="core.rd-ep") IESG [RFC9176, Section 9.3]
et Endpoint Type (with rt="core.rd-ep") IESG [RFC9176, Section 9.3]


IANA QUESTION --> Would it be acceptable to list the IETF as the change controller for the Target Attributes registrations instead of the IESG? In the past, the IESG has preferred that the IETF be used as the change controller, as described in the expired document at https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-leiba-ietf-iana-registrations-00, but it hasn’t been recorded in a permanent document yet.


Second, in the RD Parameters registry also on the Constrained RESTful Environments (CoRE) Parameters registry page located at:

https://www.iana.org/assignments/core-parameters/

A new note will be added to the front of the registry with the following text (where [IANA.core-parameters] is a link to https://www.iana.org/assignments/core-parameters/ ):

Note: All entries with the "A" flag set, including new ones, MUST also be registered in the "Target Attributes" registry [IANA.core-parameters].

The IANA Functions Operator understands that these are the only actions required to be completed upon approval of this document.

Note:  The actions requested in this document will not be completed until the document has been approved for publication as an RFC. This message is meant only to confirm the list of actions that will be performed.

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 2023-08-06):

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC: core-chairs@ietf.org, core@ietf.org, draft-ietf-core-target-attr@ietf.org, marco.tiloca@ri.se, rwilton@cisco.com
Reply-To: last-call@ietf.org
Sender:
Subject: Last Call:  (CoRE Target Attributes Registry) to Informational RFC


The IESG has received a request from the Constrained RESTful Environments WG
(core) to consider the following document: - 'CoRE Target Attributes Registry'
  as Informational RFC

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 2023-08-06. 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 Constrained RESTful Environments (CoRE) specifications apply Web
  technologies to constrained environments.  One important such
  technology is Web Linking (RFC 8288), which CoRE specifications use
  as the basis for a number of discovery protocols, such as the Link
  Format (RFC 6690) in CoAP's Resource Discovery Protocol (Section 7.2
  of RFC7252) and the Resource Directory (RD, RFC 9176).

  Web Links can have target attributes, the names of which are not
  generally coordinated by the Web Linking specification (Section 2.2
  of RFC 8288).  This document introduces an IANA registry for
  coordinating names of target attributes when used in CoRE.  It
  updates the RD Parameters IANA Registry created by RFC 9176 to
  coordinate with this registry.




The file can be obtained via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-core-target-attr/



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

# Document Shepherd Writeup for draft-ietf-core-target-attr

Document status: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-core-target-attr/

Document Shepherd: Marco Tiloca

Area Director: Francesca Palombini


## Document Summary

This document introduces the new "Target Attributes" IANA registry, to enable the coordinated use of target attribute names for Web Linking in constrained RESTful environments (see RFC 6690).

This builds on the formal setting provided by RFC 8288, which recommends a coordination of target attributes and to this end suggests the possible definition of dedicated registries.

Version -05 addresses the AD Review and incorporates further received suggestions. While producing this version, a point was raised about whether it is appropriate or not that this document updates RFC 9176 as originally intended.

## 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?

    No. The document was welcome from the start, its development has been 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 other WGs or external organizations regarding the establishment of the new IANA registry.

    Applications and technologies for constrained RESTful environments will take advantage of the new IANA registry for coordinating the use of target attributes names.

    Per the intended registration policy "Expert Review", the Designated Experts will be responsible to assess the appropriateness of registration requests of new target attributes.


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 Informational, as reflected by its Datatracker state.

    This is deemed appropriate for the content and contribution of this document, i.e., introducing a new IANA registry.


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.

    In particular, RFC 5988 (obsoleted by RFC 8288) is intentionally referred to in Section 1 "Introduction", when introducing the "original Web Linking specification" in order to provide context to the reader.

    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 9176 (if approved), explaining how a related registry in RFC 9176 will work together with the new registry.

    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 the introduction of one new IANA registry, namely "Target Attributes", 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 new registry with appropriate name "Target Attributes", and how it has to be consistently populated with initial entries.

    The new registry is defined to have registration policy "Expert Review", and the "IANA Considerations" section accurately defines the guidelines for the Designated Experts.


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.

    The new registry "Target Attributes" is to be created within the "Constrained RESTful Environments (CoRE) Parameters" registry group. Its registration policy has been appropriately defined as "Expert Review", and the "IANA Considerations" section accurately defines the guidelines for the Designated Experts.

    Well fitting Designated Experts would be the individuals currently serving as Designated Experts for other registries within the "Constrained RESTful Environments (CoRE) Parameters" registry group, with particular reference to the "RD Parameters" registry.

# Document Shepherd Writeup for draft-ietf-core-target-attr

Document status: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-core-target-attr/

Document Shepherd: Marco Tiloca

Area Director: Francesca Palombini


## Document Summary

This document introduces the new "Target Attributes" IANA registry, to enable the coordinated use of target attribute names for Web Linking in constrained RESTful environments (see RFC 6690).

This builds on the formal setting provided by RFC 8288, which recommends a coordination of target attributes and to this end suggests the possible definition of dedicated registries.


## 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?

    No. The document was welcome from the start, its development has been 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 other WGs or external organizations regarding the establishment of the new IANA registry.

    Applications and technologies for constrained RESTful environments will take advantage of the new IANA registry for coordinating the use of target attributes names.

    Per the intended registration policy "Expert Review", the Designated Experts will be responsible to assess the appropriateness of registration requests of new target attributes.


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 Informational, as reflected by its Datatracker state.

    This is deemed appropriate for the content and contribution of this document, i.e., introducing a new IANA registry.


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.

    In particular, RFC 5988 (obsoleted by RFC 8288) is intentionally referred to in Section 1 "Introduction", when introducing the "original Web Linking specification" in order to provide context to the reader.

    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 9176 (if approved), explaining how a related registry in RFC 9176 will work together with the new registry.

    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 the introduction of one new IANA registry, namely "Target Attributes", 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 new registry with appropriate name "Target Attributes", and how it has to be consistently populated with initial entries.

    The new registry is defined to have registration policy "Expert Review", and the "IANA Considerations" section accurately defines the guidelines for the Designated Experts.


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.

    The new registry "Target Attributes" is to be created within the "Constrained RESTful Environments (CoRE) Parameters" registry group. Its registration policy has been appropriately defined as "Expert Review", and the "IANA Considerations" section accurately defines the guidelines for the Designated Experts.

    Well fitting Designated Experts would be the individuals currently serving as Designated Experts for other registries within the "Constrained RESTful Environments (CoRE) Parameters" registry group, with particular reference to the "RD Parameters" registry.

# Document Shepherd Writeup for draft-ietf-core-target-attr

Document status: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-core-target-attr/

Document Shepherd: Marco Tiloca

Area Director: Francesca Palombini


## Document Summary

This document introduces the new "Target Attributes" IANA registry, to enable the coordinated use of target attribute names for Web Linking in constrained RESTful environments (see RFC 6690).

This builds on the formal setting provided by RFC 8288, which recommends a coordination of target attributes and to this end suggests the possible definition of dedicated registries.


## 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?

    No. The document was welcome from the start, its development has been 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 other WGs or external organizations regarding the establishment of the new IANA registry.

    Applications and technologies for constrained RESTful environments will take advantage of the new IANA registry for coordinating the use of target attributes names.

    Per the intended registration policy "Expert Review", the Designated Experts will be responsible to assess the appropriateness of registration requests of new target attributes.


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 Informational, as reflected by its Datatracker state.

    This is deemed appropriate for the content and contribution of this document, i.e., introducing a new IANA registry.


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.

    In particular, RFC 5988 (obsoleted by RFC 8288) is intentionally referred to in Section 1 "Introduction", when introducing the "original Web Linking specification" in order to provide context to the reader.

    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 9176 (if approved), explaining how a related registry in RFC 9176 will work together with the new registry.

    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 the introduction of one new IANA registry, namely "Target Attributes", 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 new registry with appropriate name "Target Attributes", and how it has to be consistently populated with initial entries.

    The new registry is defined to have registration policy "Expert Review", and the "IANA Considerations" section accurately defines the guidelines for the Designated Experts.


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.

    The new registry "Target Attributes" is to be created within the "Constrained RESTful Environments (CoRE) Parameters" registry group. Its registration policy has been appropriately defined as "Expert Review", and the "IANA Considerations" section accurately defines the guidelines for the Designated Experts.

    Well fitting Designated Experts would be the individuals currently serving as Designated Experts for other registries within the "Constrained RESTful Environments (CoRE) Parameters" registry group, with particular reference to the "RD Parameters" registry.