# Document Shepherd Writeup
*This version is dated 16 January 2023. Only change is to intended status.*
The most important thing to note about these drafts (this one and its
companion) is that they are the last items for the homenet WG - the WG has been
moribund for some time but the authors and AD are keen to get these drafts
published, for the record and so they could be a basis for further work and
possible deployment. While the activity level of the WG is such that one can't
claim a broad consensus, over the years this work has been in progress, the
drafts have gotten sufficient review and there was no objection to the plan to
publish them when the AD proposed doing so on the WG list in April 2022.
## 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?
Bit of both. The author team have dilligently progressed
the work, with review from WG participants over the years.
2. Was there controversy about particular points, or were there decisions where
the consensus was particularly rough?
No particular controversy.
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)?
No.
### Additional Reviews
5. Does this document need review from other IETF working groups or external
organizations? Have those reviews occurred?
N/A.
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.
N/A.
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]?
N/A.
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.
N/A.
### 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 ready.
10. Several IETF Areas have assembled [lists of common issues that their
reviewers encounter][6]. Do any such issues remain that would merit specific
attention from subsequent reviews?
N/A.
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?
Experimental. (Following IETF LC and IEST discussion.)
12. Has the interested community confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR
disclosures required by [BCP 78][7] and [BCP 79][8] have been filed? If not,
explain why. If yes, summarize any discussion and conclusion regarding the
intellectual property rights (IPR) disclosures, including links to relevant
emails.
No known IPR issues.
13. Has each Author or Contributor confirmed their willingness to be listed as
such? If the number of Authors/Editors on the front page is greater than 5,
please provide a justification.
In progress: DM, MR and RW responded so far.
14. Identify any remaining I-D nits in this document. (See [the idnits tool][9]
and the checkbox items found in Guidelines to Authors of Internet-Drafts).
Simply running the idnits tool is not enough; please review the entire
guidelines document.
idnits is happy.
15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa?
No.
16. List any normative references that are not freely available to anyone. Did
the community have sufficient access to review any such normative
references?
N/A.
17. Are there any normative downward references (see [RFC 3967][10],
[BCP 97][11])? If so, list them.
There are some downrefs to fix. It looks like all should be fine
as informative references:
** Downref: Normative reference to an Informational RFC: RFC 4192
** Downref: Normative reference to an Informational RFC: RFC 6092
** Downref: Normative reference to an Informational RFC: RFC 7010
** Downref: Normative reference to an Informational RFC: RFC 7084
** Downref: Normative reference to an Informational RFC: RFC 7368
** Downref: Normative reference to an Informational RFC: RFC 7707
18. Are there normative references to documents that are not ready for
advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state? If they exist, what is the
plan for their completion?
N/A, other than the companion draft being progressed alongside this.
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][12]).
All good.
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.
N/A.