As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document
Shepherd Write-Up. Changes are expected over time.
This version is dated 1 November 2019.
(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?
Proposed Standard. This is appropriate for a protocol change to HTTP. This is
indicated on the document header.
(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:
This document defines a new mechanism for communicating per-stream priorities
in HTTP/2 and HTTP/3. Priority here communicates a level of urgency and
information about if the data can be loaded incrementally, and can be
communicated at the start of a request and updated later. This mechanism can be
used instead of the unsuccessful priority mechanism originally defined in
HTTP/2.
Working Group Summary:
This work item came to HTTPbis as a requirement for HTTP/3 (developed in QUIC),
which on its own didn't define any priorities. The working group ran a design
team for the topic early on, and has seen good engagement in development of the
solution.
Document Quality:
There are a few implementations of the protocol in HTTP/3 to validate the
effectiveness of the protocol, and implementations in general do intend to
deploy this solution going forward (favored over the previous priority scheme).
The document is well-structured and clear, and received extensive review from
the WG.
Personnel:
Tommy Pauly is the Document Shepherd.
Francesca Palombini is the Responsible Area Director.
(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.
I reviewed the document (filed a couple editorial nits), but found it
well-written.
(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of
the reviews that have been performed?
No concerns.
(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.
No such review needed.
(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.
No specific concerns.
(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?
Authors have confirmed that there is no IPR known or disclosed.
(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If so,
summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures.
No disclosures.
(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?
The WG consensus is strong, and represents review from many individuals in the
group.
(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 appeals or discontent expressed.
(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.
The Nits tool generated this, but I don't see it as relevant:
-- Found something which looks like a code comment -- if you have code
sections in the document, please surround them with '<CODE BEGINS>' and
'<CODE ENDS>' lines.
(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such
as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.
No formal review required.
(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?
No. All normative references to documents not yet published are on track.
(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 downward normative references.
(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.
This document does not change any status of existing RFCs. Note that this does
not update the HTTP/2 RFC. HTTP/2 is going through its own bis document
(draft-ietf-httpbis-http2bis) that references this work.
(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 IANA sections registered several HTTP items (fields and frame types), and
creates a new registry for priority parameters. The information about the
registry is in the body of the document and referenced from the IANA
Considerations.
(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.
Expert review is specified for the new HTTP Priority Parameters Registry. These
experts should be assigned by the HTTPbis WG.
(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.
HTTP fields are using structured fields, which define a standard ABNF. Nothing
else applicable.
(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?
No YANG module.