> (1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard, Internet
Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? Why is this the proper
type of RFC? Is this type of RFC indicated in the title page header?
This document is Proposed Standard and is reflected on the title page.
>(2) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document Announcement Write-Up.
Please provide such a Document Announcement Write-Up. Recent examples can be
found in the "Action" announcements for approved documents. The approval
announcement contains the following sections:
>Technical Summary:
>Document Quality:
>Personnel:
This specification defines two formats and respective media types for
representing sets of links as stand-alone documents. One format is
JSON-based, the other aligned with the format for representing links
in the HTTP "Link" header field. This specification also introduces
a link relation type to support discovery of sets of links. This is intended
to be used when RFC 8288 links are not usable, and delivering a set of links
as a stand-alone document is preferable.
This is a product of the HTTPAPI working group.
The document had detailed review from many WG members and while there
was some discussion, there was nothing especially controversial, nor rough
points in any consensus issues.
There are several implementations existing and planned. These are noted in
Appendix B of the draft, which will be removed before publication as an RFC.
This was originally set to be Informational, but following a question
from one of the Directorate reviews, and confirmation on the mailing
list, this document was changed to Proposed Standard.
The shepherd for this document was Rich Salz; the responsible AD is Francesca
Palombini.
>(3) Briefly describe the review of this document that was performed by the
Document Shepherd. If this version of the document is not ready for
publication, please explain why the document is being forwarded to the IESG.
There are two old RFC references which can be fixed during AUTH48 or earlier:
6982 -> 7942 and 5988 -> 8288.
The JSON samples have data after the opening brace, but that's also can be
fixed in AUTH48 :)
I re-read the document carefully and it is ready for publication. It does a
nice job providing use cases and motivation for this work.
>(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of
the reviews that have been performed?
No. In particular Julian Reschke (noted HTTP RFC editor) provided a detailed
review.
>(5) Do portions of the document need review from a particular or from broader
perspective, e.g., security, operational complexity, AAA, DNS, DHCP, XML, or
internationalization? If so, describe the review that took place.
It might be useful to have the HTTP WG look at this. Given the overlap of
the groups's memberships, and the reviews it is already had, I am pretty
confident that no new issues will be raised.
>(6) Describe any specific concerns or issues that the Document Shepherd has
with this document that the Responsible Area Director and/or the IESG should be
aware of? For example, perhaps he or she is uncomfortable with certain parts of
the document, or has concerns whether there really is a need for it. In any
event, if the WG has discussed those issues and has indicated that it still
wishes to advance the document, detail those concerns here.
Absolutely none.
>(7) Has each author confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR disclosures
required for full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79 have
already been filed. If not, explain why?
Yes, both authors said they are not aware of any IPR.
>(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If so,
summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures.
No.
>(9) How solid is the WG consensus behind this document? Does it represent the
strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others being silent, or does the
WG as a whole understand and agree with it?
Low-level general agreement. All agree this is a worthwhile problem to
address. Nobody objected to any decisions made while writing the document.
>(10) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme
discontent? If so, please summarise 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.
>(11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this document.
(See http://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts Checklist).
Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be thorough.
See #3 above.
>(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such
as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.
The IANA considerations section (8) identifies one link relation and two media
types. Those applications, in the draft, appear to be complete.
>(13) Have all references within this document been identified as either
normative or informative?
Yes.
>(14) Are there normative references to documents that are not ready for
advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state? If such normative references
exist, what is the plan for their completion?
There are none.
>(15) Are there downward normative references (see RFC 3967)? If so, list these
downward references to support the Area Director in the Last Call procedure.
No. UPDATED MARCH 1:
When the document was changed from Informational to Proposed Standard, and
resubmitted, two downward references were created and not caught by the tooling:
** Downref: Normative reference to an Informational RFC: RFC 6906
[RFC6906] Wilde, E., "The 'profile' Link Relation Type", RFC 6906,
DOI 10.17487/RFC6906, March 2013,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6906>.
** Downref: Normative reference to an Informational RFC: RFC 7284
[RFC7284] Lanthaler, M., "The Profile URI Registry", RFC 7284,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7284, June 2014,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7284>.
>(16) Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs?
Are those RFCs listed on the title page header, listed in the abstract, and
discussed in the introduction? If the RFCs are not listed in the Abstract and
Introduction, explain why, and point to the part of the document where the
relationship of this document to the other RFCs is discussed. If this
information is not in the document, explain why the WG considers it unnecessary.
I would suggest that this gets an "Updates 8288" mention.
>(17) 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 protocol extensions that the document makes are
associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm that
any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm that newly
created IANA registries include a detailed specification of the initial
contents for the registry, that allocations procedures for future registrations
are defined, and a reasonable name for the new registry has been suggested (see
RFC 8126).
The draft proposes three additions to existing registries and the additions
look complete. Once the responsible AD is satisfied with the draft, we could
ask the registrars to review them.
>(18) List any new IANA registries that require Expert Review for future
allocations. Provide any public guidance that the IESG would find useful in
selecting the IANA Experts for these new registries.
No new registries.
>(19) Describe reviews and automated checks performed by the Document Shepherd
to validate sections of the document written in a formal language, such as XML
code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, YANG modules, etc.
doc-nits but the rest is text. I tried to carefully read the JSON examples.
>(20) If the document contains a YANG module, has the module been checked with
any of the recommended validation tools
(https://trac.ietf.org/trac/ops/wiki/yang-review-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
RFC8342?
The draft has no YANG in it.