Skip to main content

Shepherd writeup
draft-ietf-httpbis-binary-message

# Document Shepherd Writeup

## Document History

Answer either of the two options below (depending on the document type), then
continue with the common part.

### Option 1: For Documents Coming from IETF Working Groups

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?

The document enjoyed reasonably wide review and discussion throughout the
group. It was not a particularly active discussion, but a variety of folks
appear to have looked at it and thought about it.

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

No.

## Common Part

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](https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7942.html) recommends) or elsewhere
(where)?

Yes - see datatracker.

### Additional Reviews

5. Does this document need review from other IETF working groups or external
organizations? Have those reviews occurred?

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 defines one media type that will require review.

7. If the document contains a YANG module, has the final version of 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 [RFC
8342](https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8342.html)?

Not applicable.

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.

Not applicable.

### 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?

Yes.

10. Several IETF Areas have assembled [lists of common issues that their
reviewers encounter](https://trac.ietf.org/trac/iesg/wiki/ExpertTopics). Do any
such issues remain that would merit specific attention from subsequent reviews?

Of the listed topics, this draft involves HTTP.

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?

Proposed Standard. Because it's likely to be referenced by OHAI documents, and
it has WG consensus. Yes, the datatracker appears to reflect that intent.

12. Has the interested community confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR
disclosures required by [BCP 78](https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp78) and
[BCP 79](https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp79) 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.

The author has confirmed that no IPR exists to his knowledge.

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.

It's Martin's document, so I believe so.

14. Identify any remaining I-D nits in this document. (See [the idnits
tool](http://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/) 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.

I-D nits flags several issues, but none seem germane.

15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa?

They are all now correct, I believe.

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](https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3967.html), [BCP
97](https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp97))? If so, list them.

No.

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?

There are a number of references in the RFC Editor Queue, all in AUTH48 or
beyond.

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](https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8126.html)).

The document registers one new media type, and appears to do so correctly.

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.

Not applicable.
Back