# Shepherd Write-up for draft-ietf-lamps-e2e-mail-guidance-13
## 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?
There is support in the LAMPS WG for this document. It was developed over
tha last three years, with discussion at almost every IETF meeting during
that time period.
2. Was there controversy about particular points, or were there decisions where
the consensus was particularly rough?
There was little controversy, and suggested improvements were readily
accepted by the authors.
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 one has threatened an appeal.
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)?
There has been some code written, but so far, vendors of major email user
agents have not said whether they will implement. One did offer insightful
review of the Internet-Draft during WG Last Call.
## Additional Reviews
5. Do the contents of this document closely interact with technologies in other
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.
We are expecting more review from the email community during IETF Last Call,
including the ART-ART review.
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.
No special reviews are needed.
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]?
This document does not include 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.
This document does not make use of a formal language.
## 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][6]. For which areas have such issues been identified
and addressed? For which does this still need to happen in subsequent
reviews?
No concerns were noticed.
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?
As reflected in the Datatracker: Informational on the IETF Stream.
12. Have reasonable efforts been made to remind all authors of the intellectual
property rights (IPR) disclosure obligations described in [BCP 79][7]? 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.
No IPR disclosures were issued against this document.
The authors have explicitly stated that he is unaware of any IPR
that needs to be declared.
The authors have explicitly stated that he do not hold any IPR
related to this document.
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.
Yes.
14. Document any remaining I-D nits in this document. Simply running the [idnits
tool][8] is not enough; please review the ["Content Guidelines" on
authors.ietf.org][15]. (Also note that the current idnits tool generates
some incorrect warnings; a rewrite is underway.)
There are many lines with non-ASCII characters. This is intentional, and
the authors are prepared to work with the RFC Editor to ensure that the
publication formats produce appropriate output.
IDnits complains 'SHOULD not' in one paragraph.
15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the [IESG
Statement on Normative and Informative References][16].
No concerns. [I-D.ietf-lamps-header-protection] is being sent to the IESG
at the same time as this document.
16. List any normative references that are not freely available to anyone. Did
the community have sufficient access to review any such normative
references?
[REPLY] is behind a paywall. It is an informational reference, and part
of it is available at the URL in the reference:
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-21568-2_2
The whole paper can be found at:
https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1904/1904.07550.pdf
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 downward references.
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?
Yes. [I-D.ietf-lamps-header-protection] is being sent to the IESG at the
same time as this document.
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, this document will not change the status of any other document.
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][11]).
This document does not require anything from IANA.
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.
No new IANA registries are needed.