Document Shepherd Write-Up for
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-cose-cwt-claims-in-headers Based
on: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/shepherdwriteup-template/workinggroup
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 document received good feedback on the mailing list. It seems well
supported by the working group.
2. Was there controversy about particular points, or were there decisions where
the consensus was particularly rough?
There were no major controversies. The document is very simple.
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.)
I am not aware of any discontent regarding the document.
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)?
I am not aware of any implementations of this specific document, but many
implementations of COSE headers exist, in particular:
- https://github.com/erdtman/cose-js
- https://github.com/veraison/go-cose (plans to implement)
- https://github.com/transmute-industries/cose (plans to implement)
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.
Yes, this document is particularly relevant to RATS, SCITT and OAUTH at IETF
and VCWG at W3C. It’s clear from discussions on the list that reviews have
taken place from members who are active in these groups.
However the data tracker does not contain any directorate related reviews.
I don’t believe it is necessary to obtain additional reviews.
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.
N/A
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?
N/A
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.
There is only a small fragment of CDDL and it is very similar to the examples
described in https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-rats-eat/ 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?
Yes
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?
The tracker does not document reviews formally, but it's clear from the list
discussions that there were reviews from OAUTH and RATS members. I don’t
believe additional reviews are necessary.
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?
Proposed Standard, intended RFC status needs to be updated in data tracker.
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.
I have asked the authors and they confirmed privately that they are not aware
of any IPR disclosure obligations.
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. (Also note that the current idnits tool generates
some incorrect warnings; a rewrite is underway.)
I am not aware of any remaining I-D nits. The document is short and was easy to
review manually.
15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the
IESG
Statement on Normative and Informative References.
It's debatable if RFC8392 should be normative, but I don’t feel strongly that
it should be.
16. List any normative references that are not freely available to
anyone. Did
the community have sufficient access to review any such normative
references?
N/A
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.
None
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?
None
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.
The document does not update any existing RFCs.
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).
This is the main point of the document. It seems clear to me, however a
reservation entry being present in
https://www.iana.org/assignments/cose/cose.xhtml#header-parameters might
further clarify the intention. I’m not sure if that's possible for this
specific registry.
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.
No new registries are requested.