Skip to main content

Shepherd writeup

# Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents

## 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?

This document achieved broad support across the members of the working group.

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

The most challenging issue has been related to including non-normative content
that describes how to use http-problem in JSON-LD format. A few members of the
JSON-LD community have asked for this document to identify and effectively
reserve a base URI that can be used to uniquely identify the elements of the
http-problem model. Reserving a URI space does not seem appropriate for
non-normative content, and the WG does not believe it warrants delaying the
completion of the document in order to normatively include a JSON-LD variant of
the http-problem model.

There was extended discussion over the challenges with the use of relative URI
references in "type" property. No resolution could be found that was
non-breaking and consensus was to better document the challenges and defer
making a change until some point in the future where a new media type was
introduced that would allow breaking changes.

> 3. Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent?
   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
   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

As this is an update to RFC7807 there are already numerous implementations of
this media type with widesread adoption. This update does not make changes that
would invalidate existing implementations. The only new feature that would
require adoption by implementations is support for the HTTP problem field. Use
of HTTP problem field is options.

The document introduces a new mechanism to reserve space for future keywords to
be introduced without conflicting with extensions. It is theoretically possible
that the reserved space could conflict with existing extensions but the WG
believes the risk is low and therefore acceptable.

## Additional Reviews

> 5. Do the contents of this document closely interact with technologies in
   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.

The only other WG that may be interested in this work would be the HTTP WG and
there is a significant overlap in the members of both groups.  I am not aware
of an external organization that it would be beneficial to have review this

> 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 essence of the media type has not changed in this document and so the prior
approval of media type experts remains valid.

> 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]?

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.

I validated all XML, YAML and JSON content in the documentation with linters.
The CI process for the document runs rfc-http-validate-py to ensure HTTP
examples are valid.

## Document Shepherd Checks

> 9. Based on the shepherd's review of the document, is it their opinion that
   document is needed, clearly written, complete, correctly designed, and ready
   to be handed off to the responsible Area Director?

Yes this document is needed. The updates help to clarify the intent and usage
of the media type.  It is clearly written and 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

- RF5234 is a normative reference for ABNF
- Base64 encoding is not used
- It is not a binary protocol so byte-order is not relevant
- No date/time properties are defined in the document.
- The media type is based on JSON or XML and follows the internationalization,
charset and unicode rules defined for those formats. - Language support relies
on the HTTP 'accept-language' mechanism - No new status codes are introduced. -
The media type has already been registered. - This document does not describe a
protocol that needs versioning. Versioning would require creation of a new
media type. - JSON format uses JSON Schema to describe format. - XML format
uses RelaxNG to describe format.

> 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.  The existing RFC7807 is a proposed standard, and this
document is an update.

> 12. Have reasonable efforts been made to remind all authors of the
    property rights (IPR) disclosure obligations described in [BCP 79][8]? 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.

Authors have confirmed this requirement has been met as there are no required

> 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.

Authors have signaled willingness to be listed by their active participation in
the effort.

> 14. Document any remaining I-D nits in this document. Simply running the
    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.)

The following editorial nits remain:

- Normative reference to HTTP spec needs to be updated to latest published
document - Abstract should mention that this document obsoletes RFC7807 - A
later version of JSON Schema exists for the informative reference. - Discussion
Venues note should be removed. - Introduction should briefly explain what has
changed from 7807 and why. - Summary of Changes section should provide greater
detail on the motivation and changes - Errata 5515 should be addressed.

Update: These nits have been addressed in draft-ietf-httpapi-rfc7807bis-04

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

All references are correctly assigned as normative or informative.

> 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 to either IETF or W3C documents that are freely

> 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.

There are no normative downward references in this document.

> 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?
    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.

This document will obsolete RFC7807.  It is indicated in the document metadata.
According to the nits tool, it is recommended to mention this in the abstract.

> 20. Describe the document shepherd's review of the IANA considerations
    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 IANA considerations section requests that the media type registry be
updated to point to the new document for the existing registered http-problem
media types.  It also requests the creation of a new registry for problem types
and registers a single entry in that registry.

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.

The document requests the creation of the "HTTP Problem Types Registry". The
section describes the required fields of the registry in Section 5.2 as per
RFC8126. Instructions to experts are clear. Mark Nottingham would be
appropriate to be a designated expert.