Skip to main content

Shepherd writeup

# Document Shepherd Write-Up for draft-ietf-drip-auth

Initial version: 05/12/2023
Updated version to remove a note about code delimiters: 15/12/2023

## 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?

There is clear consensus to progress this specification.

2. Was there controversy about particular points, or were there decisions where
   the consensus was particularly rough?

The document went into 3 WGLCs. No controversy was raised during the development
of this specification, except the issue related to the code points to be
used for identifying the various authentication messages given that the process
for assigning and managing that space was not in place. The issue is now fixed
and the IETF has formally requested the allocation of 4 code points.
The codepoints will be echoed in an IANA registry (checked with IANA).

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.)


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][3] recommends) or elsewhere

Yes, in addition to a proprietary implementation, the following ones were

* Implementation by Linköping University [18][19]
* DRIP Importer [20]

## 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.

Some key directorate reviews were arranged by the Chairs early in the process
to tag and fix security issues, in particular.

Also, LSs were sent to ASTM and ICAO about the SAM codepoints to identify DRIP
authentication messages. ASTM and ICAO representatives attended many of DRIP
meetings (including interims [21]). No technical issue was raised by ASTM/ICAO,
but the main blocking point was the management of the SAP codepoints.
Codepoints are not formally assigned to the IETF. As per the discussion with
IANA, it is OK to mirror these codes in the IANA DRIP registry.

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.


7. If the document contains a YANG module, has the final version of the module
   been checked with any of the [recommended validation tools][4] 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][5]?


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.


## 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. The shepherd made many reviews since early versions of this spec.
The authors adequately addressed all the issues raised by the shepherd [22].

10. Several IETF Areas have assembled [lists of common issues that their
    reviewers encounter][6]. For which areas have such issues been identified
    and addressed? For which does this still need to happen in subsequent

We requested an OPS early review, but unfortunately no review was received.
We hope that an OPS review will happen in the IETF Last Call.

11. What type of RFC publication is being requested on the IETF stream ([Best
    Current Practice][12], [Proposed Standard, Internet Standard][13],
    [Informational, Experimental or Historic][14])? Why is this the proper type
    of RFC? Do all Datatracker state attributes correctly reflect this intent?

Proposed Standard.

This status is appropriate given the nature of the specification
(authentication/ interop).

Datatracker state attributes correctly reflect this intent.

12. Have reasonable efforts been made to remind all authors of the intellectual
    property rights (IPR) disclosure obligations described in [BCP 79][7]? 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. Here are the replies from the authors:

 - Stu: -
 - Adam:

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.


14. Document any remaining I-D nits in this document. Simply running the [idnits
    tool][8] is not enough; please review the ["Content Guidelines" on][15]. (Also note that the current idnits tool generates
    some incorrect warnings; a rewrite is underway.)


15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the [IESG
    Statement on Normative and Informative References][16].

I do think that RFC 9153 and RFC 9434 can be listed as informative. This point
was already discussed in the WG.

16. List any normative references that are not freely available to anyone. Did
    the community have sufficient access to review any such normative

All normative references are published RFCs, except a reference to an
external specification ([F3411]). That reference was already listed
in other DRIP RFCs, e.g., RFC 9153.

17. Are there any normative downward references (see [RFC 3967][9] and [BCP
    97][10]) that are not already listed in the [DOWNREF registry][17]? If so,
    list them.

RFC 9153 and RFC 9434.

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?


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.


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][11]).

The document requests the creation of two registries. Both the target
location and required information to proceed with the IANA actions
are provided. The document also include guidance for expert review.

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.

DRIP SAM Type and DRIP Frame Type are new registries under the DRIP
registry group.

The document also include guidance for expert review.

[17]: [18]: [19]: