Skip to main content

Shepherd writeup

        Document Writeup for Working Group Documents

        As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document
        Shepherd Write-Up.

        Changes are expected over time. This version is dated 24 February 2012.

        (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?

Standards Track.  While this is a simple registration of a response
code, proper usage of this response code influences interoperability.

        (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:

        Technical Summary:

   A CoAP server can experience temporary overload because one or more
   clients are sending requests to the server at a higher rate than
   the server is capable or willing to handle.  This document defines
   a new CoAP Response Code for a server to indicate that a client
   should reduce the rate of requests.

        Working Group Summary:

While this seemed to be a simple housekeeping document (based on other
SDOs' requests) at first, the WG process did unearth a few fine points
that have been taken care of in the current document.  WGLC was passed
July 16, 2018 (right before the CoRE meeting in Montreal), there was
no dissent on advancing this.

        Document Quality:

While no formal review was sent to the list, both Jim Schaad and Klaus
Hartke sent comments based on an in-depth review and later indicated
that their comments had been resolved in -04.  Implementers indicated
intent to implement this.  No formal languages in the document.


        Who is the Document Shepherd? Who is the Responsible Area Director?

* Shepherd: Carsten Bormann
* Responsible AD: 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

Shepherd did review ahead of WGLC and followed the comments and their

        (4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or
        breadth of the reviews that have been performed?

For the simple document this is, review was quite appropriate.

        (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
        took place.


        (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.

Shepherd is comfortable with this going forward.

        (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?

Author declared "I'm not aware of any IPR related to
draft-ietf-core-too-many-reqs." in E-Mail to WG chairs on July 24.

        (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?

Of the people who care about the area addressed in this document,
everyone agreed this should go forward.

        (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 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, media type, and URI type reviews.

While there were no formal review criteria, the response code
registration was discussed with the designated expert for other CoAP
parameters, who assented.

(The policy for this registry is

   The IANA policy for future additions to this sub-registry is "IETF
   Review or IESG Approval" as described in [RFC5226].

as per section 12.1.2 of RFC 7252; we still like to make sure that all
registrations to CoRE are being looked at by a single DE.)

        (13) Have all references within this document been identified as either
        normative or informative?

Yes, and correctly so.

        (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.

No; this is just a registration to an existing registry (from RFC 7252).

        (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 5226).

The main point of this document is the IANA registration of a response
code for CoAP.

        (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.

No new registries (just a registration to an existing registry).

        (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, etc.

No formal languages.