# Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents
*This version is dated 4 July 2022.*
Thank you for your service as a document shepherd. Among the responsibilities is
answering the questions in this write-up to give helpful context to Last Call
and Internet Engineering Steering Group ([IESG][1]) reviewers, and your
diligence in completing it is appreciated. The full role of the shepherd is
further described in [RFC 4858][2]. You will need the cooperation of the authors
and editors to complete these checks.
Note that some numbered items contain multiple related questions; please be sure
to answer all of them.
## 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?
Within the context of the relatively small EMU WG, there was concurrence from
major contributors in the WG for the publication of this specification. 2. Was
there controversy about particular points, or were there decisions where the
consensus was particularly rough?
No. The authors have gracefully incorporated feedback from the WG, which is
reflected in the current version of the draft.
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.)
There have been no expressions of extreme discontent.
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)?
At least one of the authors has implemented this specification.
## 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.
Although this specification is an adaption of the Wi-Fi Alliance’s DPP (Device
Provisioning Protocol), it is wire bound and in no way supplants DPP for WLAN
environments. Thus, it is a novel protocol within its environments and does not
interact with the technologies of other IETF working group or external
organizations in a manner that would suggest their review be beneficial.
Despite containing TLS in the name, this draft is a user of TLS but does not
modify it, relying instead on features of RFC 8446, RFC 8773 (to be replaced
with RFC 8773bis upon its publication), and secondarily, RFC 7250.
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.
This document has an IANA registration that is dependent on the EAP
Provisioning Identifiers registry defined in draft-ietf-emu-eap-arpa. This
registry has not yet been created as draft-ietf-emu-eap-arpa awaits IESG
review. The EAP Provisioning Identifiers registry requires the approval of a
Designated Expert for any new entry. It appears that the registration request
in draft-ietf-emu-bootstrapped-tls meets the requirements of
draft-ietf-emu-eap-arpa.
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?
There is no YANG module in this document.
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.
This document does not contain its own formal language sections that require
validation. What structured text that is present is imported from an existing
RFC (RFC 9258).
## 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?
It is the document shepherd’s opinion that this document is needed, clearlyl
written, complete, correctly designed, and ready for the ministrations of the
responsible Area Director.
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?
From the ART area, this document lightly touches upon UTF-8 for use in the
registered NAI. From the OPS area, this specification touches upon DNS special
use names / top-level name. Both of these are covered by the reliance upon
draft-ietf-emu-eap-arpa, and it does not appear that the NAI in this document
contravenes the requirements that are already met by draft-ietf-emu-eap-arpa.
Overall, the document falls within the Security Area. The Security
Considerations section does address the threat model, noting the
misappropriation of certain keys and the consequences of such.
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?
This document is intended to be published as a Proposed Standard. Given its
basis in an existing industry standard (DPP), it is believed that this
adaptation is suitable for publication on the Standards Track.
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.
The authors are aware of their IPR disclosure requirements. No disclosures have
been filed. A call for IPR disclosures to the EMU WG mailing list elicited no
disclosures either.
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.)
There are two errors, both downrefs (RFC 5869 and RFC 8773). The former is
Informational and is the standard reference for HKDF. It is already normatively
referenced by standards such as RFC 8446 (TLS 1.3). The latter of the two
downrefs will be replaced by RFC 8773bis, which has already been advanced to
the IESG for publication. RFC 8773bis essentially changes that the status of
RFC 8773 from Experimental to Proposed Standard by republishing and polishing
it. The other two outputs from idnits are an unused reference (a reference to
IEEE 802.1X is needed in section 1.1) and a referenced document version
mismatch (for draft-ietf-emu-eap-arpa, which was recently revised due to IETF
LC inputs; this will be addressed by an update to this document that either
points to the newer version of draft-ietf-emu-eap-arpa or to the eventual RFC.)
Regarding the content guideline revew information, the draft is appropriately
named. It contains all of the required sections. It does not contain a Privacy
Considerations section, but this may be considered superfluous as the protocol
is for one-time use in provisioning a device with no user identity. It does not
contain an Implementation Status section, however one could be added. There is
at least one known implementation by one of the authors. The document appears
to meet the requirements for language and style. The document uses ASCII-art
diagrams but does not have SVG versions available. The ASCII diagrams appear to
render nicely in HTML. Aside from a small amount of TLS Presentation Language
text (see RFC 8446, section 3) that is imported from RFC 9258, the document
does not itself use any formal language. The document does appear to meet the
requirements of the protocol checklist. None of the examples in this draft
impinge upon the requirements for example addresses.
15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the IESG
Statement on Normative and Informative References.
No. While there is a downref for RFC 5869, this use is found in other RFCs as
well.
16. 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 to IETF specifications.
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.
RFC 5869 is already in the downref registry.
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?
No. The only normative non-RFC referenced is draft-ietf-emu-eap-arpa. This has
been submitted to the IESG for publication.
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.
No.
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).
The IANA considerations section was reviewed against the requirements of
draft-ietf-emu-eap-arpa. It appears to be meet the requirements of
draft-ietf-emu-eap-arpa, although these are of course subject to change prior
to that document’s publication.
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.
This document not create any IANA registries. It relies on a to-be-created IANA
registry that is subject to DE review. That registry is specified in
draft-ietf-emu-eap-arpa.