Document History
Does the working group (WG) consensus represent the strong concurrence of a
few individuals, with others being silent, or did it reach broad agreement?
A small number of individuals participated in discussion on the document,
probably due to its specialized nature and the rarity of handling documents
in the DISPATCH working group.
Was there controversy about particular points, or were there decisions where
the consensus was particularly rough?
There was particular discussion about the internationalization aspects of
the document. It is my understanding that the issues have been resolved.
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.)
At one point, John Klensin disagreed with whether it is within the DISPATCH
charter to process this document and mentioned a possible appeal:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dispatch/ECxthK8IHZj3nbP8yGIJ4iIkBr4/
(including this rather than a separate email since the comment was also public)
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)?
This document exists to register media types already in use for protocol
buffers. Specific implementations are not cited.
Additional Reviews
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.
The primary area of review that might be needed is internationalization.
Relevant individuals participated in the WG discussion, but broader review
might be needed.
Describe how the document meets any required formal expert review criteria,
such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.
The relevant review area would be media types since this is a registration
for media types. However, one of the authors is a media types Designated Expert.
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
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.
No formal languages are used in the document.
Document Shepherd Checks
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
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?
As mentioned above, internationalization issues have been noted and addressed.
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?
Informational: This is correct because the document does not specify a protocol
and exists to satisfy requirements to add entries to an existing registry.
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.
Yes; the authors have been polled. One of the authors has pointed out that
the Google implementation of protobufs
https://github.com/protocolbuffers/protobuf/tree/main
has a modified BSD 3-clause license
https://github.com/protocolbuffers/protobuf/blob/main/LICENSE.
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. There are three authors.
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.)
The document is free of nits noted by the tool. No problems with the Content
Guidelines have been noted by the document shepherd.
Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the IESG
Statement on Normative and Informative References.
List any normative references that are not freely available to anyone. Did
the community have sufficient access to review any such normative
references?
All normative references are freely available.
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.
No downward references have been noted.
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?
N/A
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.
N/A
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 document is effectively just an IANA consideration section, with a bit
of descriptive information added.
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 IANA registries are defined.