Skip to main content

Shepherd writeup

(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?

Informational. It is indicated in the title page header. As this document does
not contain RFC2119 requirement languages. And this working group was chartered
to do the informational analysis at the beginning, so every document for this
stage is informational.

(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:

This document presents an architecture for accessing application agnostic
in-network storage, discusses the underlying principles, and identifies key
functionalities in the architecture for introducing a DECADE-compatible
in-network storage system. In addition, some examples are given to illustrate
these concepts.

Working Group Summary:

This document is a product of the DECADE WG, and was reviewed in working group
meetings and via the list. The consensus was made both in
meeting and mailing list.

Document Quality:

The document was reviewed by DECADE WG members, the WG Chairs, and key non-WG
contributors, particularly by Konstantinos Pentikousis, Peng Zhang, Stephen
Farrell, Carsten Bormann, David Harrington, David E Mcdysan, Borje Ohlman, and
Ning Zong. The authors addressed all the comments, especially removed the
optimization details from the architecture document. A few vendors and ISPs are
interested in implementing/testing.


Haibin Song ( is the document shepherd. Martin
Stiemerling ( is the responsible area director.

(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 IESG.

This document is in good shape, it covers the important features for data
resource protocol and data transport protocol, and specifies the main
characteristics of the data objects, access&authorization token and naming
scheme. It is a good framework to design the application agnostic in-network
storage used for content distribution. This document now presented is ready for

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


(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.


(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.


(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If so,
summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures.


(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?

The WG support this document for publication. Individual protocol related
documents have been proposed based on this architecture draft(although the
re-chartering process has not been finished yet).

(10) 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.)


(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.


(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such
as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.

This document does not include any such formal language.

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

DECADE requirements draft (draft-ietf-decade-reqs-08) is a normative reference.
These two documents are intended to go through the publication process together
so as to avoid the reference to a unstable draft. The write-up for the DECADE
requirements draft has been sent to the responsible area director.

(15) Are there downward normative 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.


(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 document does not have any IANA considerations.

(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, etc.

This document does not include any such formal language.