Skip to main content

Shepherd writeup
draft-ietf-core-target-attr

# 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 <marco.tiloca@ri.se>

Area Director: Francesca Palombini <francesca.palombini@ericsson.com>

## 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.
Back