Near Real Time Mirroring (NRTM) version 4
draft-ietf-grow-nrtm-v4-11

[Ballot comment]
I have no objections to this document. Two nits follow:

From Sections 7.3 and 8.3:
> {"object": "route: 2001:db8::/32\norigin: AS64500\nsource: EXAMPLE"}

Per Section 3 of RFC 4012, the class for IPv6 routes is route6, not route.

From Section 6.3:
> If the snapshot or delta file was compressed with GZIP, the
> filename MUST end in ".gz", and the hash MUST match the compressed
> data.

Why not use Content-Encoding or Content-Type headers instead? I assume there's a reason, and I would suggest a quick note of it here as relying on file extensions feels odd and fragile (+1 to Andy's callout).

[Ballot comment]
While I still disagree with the technical choice, I'm satisfied that the working group considered the options and has made a conscious decision here. I'll consider the DISCUSS addressed. (Preserving below.) The other elements have been addressed in the most recent draft.

Thanks to Julian Reschke for the HTTP Directorate review
(https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/review-ietf-grow-nrtm-v4-08-httpdir-lc-reschke-2026-02-27/).

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCUSS
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Section 2, paragraph 7
>    object in large files can be parsed independently.  Files MAY be
>    compressed with GZIP [RFC1952].

What is the motivation for specifying GZIP only? You're using HTTP -- why not
do normal content negotiation and allow clients and servers to select any
mutually acceptable content encoding? (See
https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9110.html#name-accept-encoding)

[Ballot comment]
Thanks to the authors and the WG for this important document for Internet Routing operations.

Thanks to Sasha and co-authors for addressing my previous discussion points and comments.

One potential issue has crept into section 4.3.2 in v10 ... please see suggestion below:

s/ Mirror servers should not generate new Snapshot Files more than once per hour/ Mirror servers SHOULD NOT generate new Snapshot Files more than once per hour

[Ballot comment]
Thank you to Watson L. for the SEC review.

Thanks for the effort of creating this draft and attempting to fix an insecure data distribution problem.

* As a general comment, I'm concerned about the lack of specificity on the JWS cryptography.  IANA has a lot of registered options for JSON Web Signatures, algorithms, compression, etc.  Every client implementation has build all of those options in order to handle anything the server creates?  Is there a mandatory to implement sub-set of those?

* Being more specific about the Key, key lifetime, etc. would be useful here; that seems a not well defined

* As a general comment, I'm concerned about the lack of specificity on the JWS cryptography.  IANA has a lot of registered options for JSON Web Signatures, algorithms, compression, etc.  Every client implementation has build all of those options in order to handle anything the server creates?  Is there a mandatory to implement sub-set of those?

* I think in the terminology it would be helpful to be very clear that `database` in this context is the collection of IRR snapshot and delta files; it does not refer to any type of RDBMS or similar system.  (That is fairly clear already, but I don’t think it would hurt to be extra explicit.)

* > 260   Version  An incremental number that identifies the IRR Database at a
  > 261       particular point in time.
  I think this can be more clear, maybe something like (I’m sure you can do better, but):
  `Version - A monotonically increasing number that identifies a particular IRR Database data version, scoped by a Session Identifier,  at a particular point in time`
  `Session Identifier - A generated identifier which defines a particular instance of a copy of the IRR database upon which Snapshot Files, Delta Files, and Notifications are associated`

[Ballot comment]
Thanks to Claudio Allocchio for the ARTART review and to the authors for promptly addressing the points raised within it.

I support the DISCUSS from Ketan and the COMMENTS from others regarding the use of "SHOULD", but I will not duplicate those here.

[Ballot comment]
Section 6.4, paragraph 3
>    *  Implementations MUST support ES256 for interoperability.  The
>      algorithm MUST NOT be Deprecated, and it is RECOMMENDED to use
>      Recommended or Recommended+ algorithms, as listed in the IANA JOSE
>      Algorithms registry [IANA_jose].

The requirement of support for ES256 is reasonable, but the document
should ensure it does not exclude future widely adopted algorithms such
as PQC once they reach recommended status. A brief future-proofing note
would be useful.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NIT
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

All comments below are about very minor potential issues that you may choose to
address in some way - or ignore - as you see fit. Some were flagged by
automated tools (via https://github.com/larseggert/ietf-reviewtool), so there
will likely be some false positives. There is no need to let me know what you
did with these suggestions.

Section 7.3, paragraph 10
>  and object class name are not case sensitive and therefore mirror clients M
>                                ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
This word is normally spelled with a hyphen.

Section 7.3, paragraph 10
> efore mirror clients MUST use case insensitive matching against their local
>                              ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
This word is normally spelled with a hyphen.

Section 8.1, paragraph 1
> ECOMMENDED to use NTP [RFC5905] synchronisation to avoid timing discrepancies
>                                ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Do not mix variants of the same word ("synchronisation" and "synchronization")
within a single text.

[Ballot comment]
Thank you to Paul Kyzivat for the GENART review.

** Section 6.3
  *  The hash attribute in snapshot and delta elements MUST be the
      hexadecimal encoding of the SHA-256 hash [SHS] of the referenced
      file.  The mirror client MUST verify this hash when the file is
      retrieved and reject the file if the hash does not match.

This document is hard-coding SHA-256.  What is the proposed approach for algorithm agility?

** Section 6.4
  *  Implementations MUST support ES256 for interoperability.  The
      algorithm MUST NOT be Deprecated

Consider if it worth emphasizing (since RFC9864 needed to clarify) that “The selected algorithm MUST NOT be marked as Deprecated or _Prohibited_”? (i.e., add text about “Prohibited”).

[Ballot discuss]
Thanks to the authors and the WG for this important document for Internet Routing operations.

I have a couple of points that I would like to discuss.

Section 4.3.2 says "The mirror server SHOULD continue to produce Delta Files during this window, which means that the server may publish a Snapshot File with a version number older than the most recent Delta File at the time of publication."

The scenario being described before that text is definitely possible and defining the behavior is helpful. I am concerned why it is SHOULD and not a MUST to provide deterministic behavior to clients. Also, I would have expected that an incremental version number at the start of the snapshot process is "reserved" for use with that snapshot and further increments be done for the delta files such that the delta files version numbers are larger than the snapshot.

Alternately, to keep things simple, why not just suspend the delta file generation while snapshot is in progress, and then do a "one larger catch-up Delta file" as indicated in section 4.3.1 ?

Perhaps I am not interpreting that text correctly?

Section 4.3.3 does not talk about the version number and incrementing/update that the server needs to do for the Update Notification file. The use of this version number by the client is specified in Sec 5.4 though and it would be good to specify the server side aspects in 4.3.3? This section is very thin and seems to lack the details on how the server generates/updates and publishes the Update Notification file as compared to the snapshot and delta files.

[Ballot comment]
Please also find below some comments/suggestions:

1) In section 2, "NRTMv3 serials can also contain gaps, NRTMv4 versions may not." ... shouldn't the "may not" be "do not" ?

2) Section 4.3.1, "The URL where the Delta File is published MUST contain the session ID and version number to allow it to be indefinitely cached." Is this caching done by the Mirror Server or someone else? If it is done by the Mirror Server, then this seems to contradicts with section 9.5 "After publishing a new Update Notification File, and absent local policy, a mirror server SHOULD remove any Snapshot and Delta Files that are no longer referenced." and also much of the "Cache Concerns" sections and other text in section 6, 7 and 8 ... or am I missing something? There is also a similar "indefinitely cached" for snapshot in section 4.3.2.

3) Section 5.2, "Mirror clients MUST NOT check more than once per minute." - what does the server do if this happens?

[Ballot comment]
# Gunter Van de Velde, RTG AD, comments for draft-ietf-grow-nrtm-v4-09

# The line numbers used are rendered from IETF idnits tool: https://author-tools.ietf.org/api/idnits?url=https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-grow-nrtm-v4-09.txt

# Thank you for this work and for the nice write-up. Most of my comments are observations and clarifications as this specific technology space is new, and interresting, to me.

# thanks to Daniele Ceccarelli for the RTGDIR review

# DISCUSS
# ========



# Detailed Review
# ===============

17   This document specifies a one-way synchronization protocol for
18   Internet Routing Registry (IRR) records, called Near Real Time
19   Mirroring version 4 (NRTMv4), in which files are distributed over
20   HTTPS.  The protocol allows instances of IRR database servers to
21   mirror IRR records, specified in the Routing Policy Specification
22   Language (RPSL), between each other.

GV> This draft documents NRTMv4. It took me a while reading the text to realize that there was prior art with NRTMv3. Maybe few words can be mentioned. also where was NRTMv1 described? Was that https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2650? Did ever anything happen with NRTMv2? Maybe mentione a phraze that there was prior NRTM art in existance and the novelty that this specific version introduces?

150   In NRTMv4, a mirror server is an instance of IRR Database software
151   that has a database of IRR objects and publishes them to allow
152   mirroring by others.  These objects can be retrieved by mirror
153   clients, which then load them into their local storage.  The IRR
154   Database has a version, which the mirror server starts at 1, and
155   increments every time it publishes a set of changes.

GV> Can you clarify what 'publishes' means in this context? does it mean to make it available for retrieval by using https?

GV> I assume that the version number is locally significant? is it a value that is "ephemeral" or is version number retained during reboots?

199   object in large files can be parsed independently.  Files MAY be
200   compressed with GZIP [RFC1952].

GV> GZIP seems to be of reasonable age. have more modern compression schemes like Brotli (RFC 7932) or Zstandard (RFC 8878) been considered?

202   Mirror clients initially retrieve the small Update Notification File
203   and a Snapshot File, from which they initialize their local copy of
204   the Database.  After that, mirror clients only retrieve the Update
205   Notification File periodically, typically every minute, to determine
206   whether there are any changes, and then retrieve only the relevant
207   Delta Files, if any.  This minimizes data transfer.  Deltas have
208   sequential versions.

GV> The above describes a pull mechanism from client to the mirror server. That sounds rather procedure heavy. Has a procedure similar to netconf notifications been considered, where a client subscribes at the server to updates and gets each update instantaniously through triggered notifications? It seems less procedure heavy and easier for the mirror to simply send updates to subscribed clients then for each client to go through the request and response periodically. Maybe i misunderstood the summary in this paragraph though.

312   Note that a publication, and its associated session_ids and versions,
313   always relates to a single specific IRR Database, even if multiple
314   databases are published from one instance.  For example, a mirror
315   server publishing NRTMv4 for RIPE and RIPE-NONAUTH, will generate two
316   Update Notification Files, referring to two Snapshot Files, and two
317   sets of Delta Files each with contiguous version numbers - all

GV> Maybe add reference to RIPE and RIPE-NONAUTH. It is first i hear the term RIPE-NONAUTH.

322 4.3.  Publishing Updates
324
324   After creating the initialization files, the mirror server processes
325   updates by publishing Delta Files and, periodically, a new Snapshot
326   File.

GV> I get the impression that the ternm "publishing" has two specific meanings in this document. (1) the procedure where a database of IRR objects is made available through (Update Notif File, Snapshot file and Delta file), and (2) the using the same term in "publishing Delta files" or "A mirror server MUST publish a Delta File" where publishing/publish is used for single operation to make a single file available for retrieval by clients. This looks slightly confusing terminology.

Thanks for this write-up.

Gunter Van de Velde
RTG Area Director

[Ballot discuss]
Thanks to Julian Reschke for the HTTP Directorate review
(https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/review-ietf-grow-nrtm-v4-08-httpdir-lc-reschke-2026-02-27/).

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCUSS
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Section 2, paragraph 7
>    object in large files can be parsed independently.  Files MAY be
>    compressed with GZIP [RFC1952].

What is the motivation for specifying GZIP only? You're using HTTP -- why not
do normal content negotiation and allow clients and servers to select any
mutually acceptable content encoding? (See
https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9110.html#name-accept-encoding)

[Ballot discuss]
Thanks to Julian Reschke for the HTTP Directorate review
(https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/review-ietf-grow-nrtm-v4-08-httpdir-lc-reschke-2026-02-27/).

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCUSS
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Section 2, paragraph 7
>    object in large files can be parsed independently.  Files MAY be
>    compressed with GZIP [RFC1952].

What is the motivation for specifying GZIP only? You're using HTTP -- why not
do normal content negotiation and allow clients and servers to select any
mutually acceptable content encoding? (See
https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9110.html#name-accept-encoding)

Section 5.4, paragraph 7
>    *  The mirror client MUST verify that the hashes of each Delta and
>      Snapshot File have not changed compared to previous entries seen
>      for the same file type and version.  If a newer Update
>      Notification File contains a different hash for a specific file,
>      this indicates a misconfiguration in the server and the client
>      MUST reject the Update Notification File.  The client can do this
>      by recording the files referenced by the previous valid Update
>      Notification File and comparing the overlapping entries with the
>      retrieved Update Notification File.


As written, this could be an unbounded state commitment -- the client is expected
to retain this information forever. I would think it's sufficient to require a
comparison to the previously-accepted Update Notification file.

[Ballot comment]
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Section 4.3.2, paragraph 3
>    *  The mirror server MUST generate a new Snapshot File between once
>      per hour and once per day, if there have been changes to the IRR
>      objects.

What value does the lower bound serve? Is this intended to be read as "MUST NOT
generate a snapshot more frequently than once per hour"? If so, what do clients
do if they notice too-frequent updates?

Section 4.3.2, paragraph 3
>    *  The version number of the new snapshot MUST be equal to the last
>      Delta File version.

Given the last bullet, it might be worth specifying that it's the last Delta
File as of the time the server begins generating the snapshot.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NIT
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

All comments below are about very minor potential issues that you may choose to
address in some way - or ignore - as you see fit. Some were flagged by
automated tools (via https://github.com/larseggert/ietf-reviewtool), so there
will likely be some false positives. There is no need to let me know what you
did with these suggestions.

Section 1, paragraph 3
>    some concepts in [RFC8182], as there are overlaps between the two
>    protocols.

It might be nice to name the protocol in that RFC.

Section 2, paragraph 8
>    [RFC7515] format, where the payload is in the JavaScript Object
>    Notation (JSON) format [RFC8259].  The Snapshot File and Delta Files

JSON is on the well-known abbreviations list; you don't need to spell it out.

Section 7.3, paragraph 10
>  and object class name are not case sensitive and therefore mirror clients M
>                                ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
This word is normally spelled with a hyphen. [EN_COMPOUNDS_CASE_SENSITIVE]

Section 7.3, paragraph 10
> efore mirror clients MUST use case insensitive matching against their local
>                              ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
This word is normally spelled with a hyphen. [EN_COMPOUNDS_CASE_INSENSITIVE]

Section 8.1, paragraph 1
> ECOMMENDED to use NTP [RFC5905] synchronisation to avoid timing discrepancies
>                                ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Do not mix variants of the same word ("synchronisation" and "synchronization")
within a single text. [EN_WORD_COHERENCY]

[Ballot comment]
While I'm balloting 'no objection', I would like these comments to be carefully considered and addressed (not necessarily changes, if I have misunderstood).

Thanks to Watson Ladd for their secdir review.

Section 5.3, bullet 4, Section 5.4, bullets 6&8:  Are these files signed?  And if so, does the client validate the signature?  Or only the hash?  Is the hash algorithm the one that is specified in Section 6.4?

Section 5.6:  The mirror client only verifies the signature on the Update Notification File?  Not on the Snapshot or the Delta files?

Section 6.4:  Consider mentioning that the jose registry referenced specifies both the hash and signature algorithm.  It might be useful to state that the hash specified with the signature algorithm is the one that must be used. 

Section 7 and 8:  I don't see anything about hashing the contents of these files?  Much less which hash to use (the one specified in Section 6.4).

Section 11, para 3:  Doing a bit for bit comparison of a hash is not an integrity check.  Does the Delta and/or Snapshot happen before the Update Notification File?  If so, then that has shows where an error/attack has occurred. 

Section 11:  There should be a short paragraph that explains the risks associated with compression algorithms.  I can help write this paragraph, if needed.

[Ballot comment]
Thanks for the work done in this document.

I have a major comment as there are several "SHOULD" in the text without the required guidance per https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/statement-iesg-statement-on-clarifying-the-use-of-bcp-14-key-words/

Another cosmetic suggestion: use SVG graphics rather than ASCII art, the HTML rendering is much nicer (and easy to do if the authors use the Markdown format).

[Ballot comment]
# Andy Newton, ART AD, comments for draft-ietf-grow-nrtm-v4-09
CC @anewton1998

* line numbers:
  - https://author-tools.ietf.org/api/idnits?url=https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-grow-nrtm-v4-09.txt&submitcheck=True

* comment syntax:
  - https://github.com/mnot/ietf-comments/blob/main/format.md

* "Handling Ballot Positions":
  - https://ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-ballot-positions/

## Thanks to the Reviewers

Thanks to Claudio Allocchio for the ARTART review.
And thanks to the authors and working group for addressing the points in his review.

## Comments

Overall, this is a well written document. I only have some non-blocking comments.

### Two database suggestions

314        databases are published from one instance.  For example, a mirror
315        server publishing NRTMv4 for RIPE and RIPE-NONAUTH, will generate two

Would "RIPE and RIPE-NONAUTH (two separate IRR databases)" make it clearer
to the reader that RIPE and RIPE-NOAUTH refer to separate databases?

### Non-normative RECOMMENDEDs

416        ...  It is RECOMMENDED to
417        modify objects in such a way that this change is evident to humans
418        reading the object text, for example, by adding remark lines or
419        comments.

Without a specific action to take, is this RECOMMENDED normative? Can the advice to add remarks or comments
be made THE action to take?

934        It is RECOMMENDED for mirror clients to be flexible where possible
935        and reasonable when applying their own validation rules to IRR
936        objects retrieved from mirror servers.  For example, a route object

This is good advice, but it is unclear what action is to be taken to be flexible.
I think this should be a non-normative "recommended".

### About Once a Year

982        It is RECOMMENDED that IRR Database operators rotate the signing key
983        on their mirror server about once per year.  ....

The "about" leaves a lot of room for interpretation. Can a range be specified, such as
between 8 months and 16 months?

### Consider Media Types

715          If the snapshot or delta file was compressed with GZIP, the
716          filename MUST end in ".gz", ...

Has the working group considered using media types to describe the type of content in the files, instead of relying on file name suffixes?
That might offer some flexibility for switching to different compression types, etc..., in the future.


## Nits

### Representing or Storing

116        The Internet Routing Registry (IRR) consists of several IRR
117        Databases, each storing objects in the Routing Policy Specification
118        Language (RPSL) [RFC2622].  ....

I know this is a nit, but I think the objects are "respresented using RPSL",
where storage could be done by any means... such as a denormalized SQL db.

[Ballot comment]
I understand this protocol works over HTTP using an IETF-defined Internet transport, hence there are no specific transport-related concerns.

I have two comments that are likely very easy to address (both call for a little more background rationale):

"All configuration options SHOULD be clearly named to indicate that they are private keys."
- Are there actual requirements where this needs to not be the case: if not, why not MUST? or if so, please explain those cases?

"It is RECOMMENDED that implementations use a bounded exponential backoff strategy,"
- I strongly agree, please could you add a sentence to explain why this is important.

Wating for a new version that addresses directorate reviews:

* RTGDIR review by Daniele Ceccarelli
* ARTART review by Claudio Allocchio
* OPSDIR review by Menachem Dodge
* HTTPDIR review by Julian Reschke
* SECDIR review by Watson Ladd
* GENART review by Paul Kyzivat

No other comments were received during IETF LC.

Request for IETF Last Call review by OPSDIR Completed: Has Nits. Reviewer: Menachem Dodge. Sent review to list. Submission of review completed at an earlier date.

Request for IETF Last Call review by SECDIR Completed: Has Nits. Reviewer: Watson Ladd. Sent review to list. Submission of review completed at an earlier date.

The following Last Call announcement was sent out (ends 2026-03-04):

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC: draft-ietf-grow-nrtm-v4@ietf.org, grow-chairs@ietf.org, grow@ietf.org, mohamed.boucadair@orange.com, paolo@ntt.net
Reply-To: last-call@ietf.org
Sender:
Subject: Last Call:  (Near Real Time Mirroring (NRTM) version 4) to Proposed Standard


The IESG has received a request from the Global Routing Operations WG (grow)
to consider the following document: - 'Near Real Time Mirroring (NRTM)
version 4'
  as Proposed Standard

The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits final
comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the
last-call@ietf.org mailing lists by 2026-03-04. Exceptionally, comments may
be sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the beginning
of the Subject line to allow automated sorting.

Abstract


  This document specifies a one-way synchronization HTTP-based protocol
  for Internet Routing Registry (IRR) records, called Near Real Time
  Mirroring version 4 (NRTMv4).  The protocol allows instances of IRR
  database servers to mirror IRR records, specified in the Routing
  Policy Specification Language (RPSL), between each other.





The file can be obtained via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-grow-nrtm-v4/



No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D.

# 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?

A few individuals agreed with others being silent. This is an expected outcome for "niche" topics and documents. What is very important is that the document is accompanied by a comprehensive implementation report showing running code and adoption by multiple implementations.

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

No objections have been reported.

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.)

No.

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
  (where)?

Yes, 5 implementations have been reported adopting already implementing the draft document, 3 with already released code, 2 not released yet. These implementation easily cover 80%+ of the existing addressable market for this implementation.

## 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.

No.

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.

The document does not touch / need any of these.

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]?

No, the document does not contain a YANG module.

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.

The document does not involve any of these.

## 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?

The document is needed, as it improves upon existing protocols in the areas of security, data integrity and efficiency. The document ticks all the marks and is ready to be handed off to the AD.

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
    reviews?

No issues encountered.

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 indicated in the front page and Datatracker metadata. This status is appropriate given that the document specifies a protocol that require interoperability between clients and servers.

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. https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/grow/FHQ2uBDOaNcjzcwVBXbEpVfHCZk/

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][8] is not enough; please review the ["Content Guidelines" on
    authors.ietf.org][15]. (Also note that the current idnits tool generates
    some incorrect warnings; a rewrite is underway.)

Overall things look good. There is a complain about long lines but these are
part of an example; also about some non-ascii characters, again, part of an
example. There is no work for IANA to do, this is OK. Two fixes needed by the
authors:
* Reference to rfc4122 should be updated to rfc9562;
* An instance of "SHOULD not" is to be updated to "SHOULD NOT".

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

All references are accurate.

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

None.

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.

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.

No, this is greenfield work.

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]).

None.

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.

None.

[1]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/
[2]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4858.html
[3]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7942.html
[4]: https://wiki.ietf.org/group/ops/yang-review-tools
[5]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8342.html
[6]: https://wiki.ietf.org/group/iesg/ExpertTopics
[7]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp79
[8]: https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/
[9]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3967.html
[10]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp97
[11]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8126.html
[12]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-5
[13]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.1
[14]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.2
[15]: https://authors.ietf.org/en/content-guidelines-overview
[16]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/normative-informative-references/
[17]: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/downref/

# 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?

A few individuals agreed with others being silent. This is an expected outcome for "niche" topics and documents. What is very important is that the document is accompanied by a comprehensive implementation report showing running code and adoption by multiple implementations.

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

No objections have been reported.

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.)

No.

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
  (where)?

Yes, 5 implementations have been reported adopting already implementing the draft document, 3 with already released code, 2 not released yet. These implementation easily cover 80%+ of the existing addressable market for this implementation.

## 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.

No.

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.

The document does not touch / need any of these.

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]?

No, the document does not contain a YANG module.

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.

The document does not involve any of these.

## 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?

The document is needed, as it improves upon existing protocols in the areas of security, data integrity and efficiency. The document ticks all the marks and is ready to be handed off to the AD.

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
    reviews?

No issues encountered.

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 indicated in the front page and Datatracker metadata. This status is appropriate given that the document specifies a protocol that require interoperability between clients and servers.

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. https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/grow/FHQ2uBDOaNcjzcwVBXbEpVfHCZk/

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][8] is not enough; please review the ["Content Guidelines" on
    authors.ietf.org][15]. (Also note that the current idnits tool generates
    some incorrect warnings; a rewrite is underway.)

Overall things look good. There is a complain about long lines but these are
part of an example; also about some non-ascii characters, again, part of an
example. There is no work for IANA to do, this is OK. Two fixes needed by the
authors:
* Reference to rfc4122 should be updated to rfc9562;
* An instance of "SHOULD not" is to be updated to "SHOULD NOT".

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

All references are accurate.

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

None.

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.

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.

No, this is greenfield work.

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]).

None.

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.

None.

[1]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/
[2]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4858.html
[3]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7942.html
[4]: https://wiki.ietf.org/group/ops/yang-review-tools
[5]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8342.html
[6]: https://wiki.ietf.org/group/iesg/ExpertTopics
[7]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp79
[8]: https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/
[9]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3967.html
[10]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp97
[11]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8126.html
[12]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-5
[13]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.1
[14]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.2
[15]: https://authors.ietf.org/en/content-guidelines-overview
[16]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/normative-informative-references/
[17]: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/downref/

# 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?

A few individuals agreed with others being silent. This is an expected outcome for "niche" topics and documents. What is very important is that the document is accompanied by a comprehensive implementation report showing running code and adoption by multiple implementations.

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

No objections have been reported.

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.)

No.

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
  (where)?

Yes, 5 implementations have been reported adopting already implementing the draft document, 3 with already released code, 2 not released yet. These implementation easily cover 80%+ of the existing addressable market for this implementation.

## 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.

No.

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.

The document does not touch / need any of these.

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]?

No, the document does not contain a YANG module.

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.

The document does not involve any of these.

## 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?

The document is needed, as it improves upon existing protocols in the areas of security, data integrity and efficiency. The document ticks all the marks and is ready to be handed off to the AD.

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
    reviews?

No issues encountered.

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?

Internet Standard.

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. https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/grow/FHQ2uBDOaNcjzcwVBXbEpVfHCZk/

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][8] is not enough; please review the ["Content Guidelines" on
    authors.ietf.org][15]. (Also note that the current idnits tool generates
    some incorrect warnings; a rewrite is underway.)

Overall things look good. There is a complain about long lines but these are
part of an example; also about some non-ascii characters, again, part of an
example. There is no work for IANA to do, this is OK. Two fixes needed by the
authors:
* Reference to rfc4122 should be updated to rfc9562;
* An instance of "SHOULD not" is to be updated to "SHOULD NOT".

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

All references are accurate.

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

None.

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.

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.

No, this is greenfield work.

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]).

None.

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.

None.

[1]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/
[2]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4858.html
[3]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7942.html
[4]: https://wiki.ietf.org/group/ops/yang-review-tools
[5]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8342.html
[6]: https://wiki.ietf.org/group/iesg/ExpertTopics
[7]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp79
[8]: https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/
[9]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3967.html
[10]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp97
[11]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8126.html
[12]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-5
[13]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.1
[14]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.2
[15]: https://authors.ietf.org/en/content-guidelines-overview
[16]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/normative-informative-references/
[17]: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/downref/