Skip to main content

Shepherd writeup

Document Shepherd Write-Up for draft-ietf-manet-ibs-03

(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?

     The intended status is “Proposed Standard”,
     and this is indicated in the title page 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 builds on RFC7182 and RFC6507, and
     provides a framework for using Identity-Based
     Signatures in MANET routing protocols.

Working Group Summary:

     The document was presented at the WG meeting at
     IETF’90, and had reasonable discussion both before
     and after this meeting. There were significant
     expression of support for adoption as WG document,
     a couple of reviews posted after adoption, which were
     addressed. On the author’s initiative, external
     verification of the example provided in Appendix A
     was sought from a crypto-expert.

     WGLC saw positive support for publication, with
     nobody appearing to be “in the rough"

Document Quality:
Are there existing implementations of the protocol? Have a significant number
of vendors indicated their plan to implement the specification? Are there any
reviewers that merit special mention as having done a thorough review, e.g.,
one that resulted in important changes or a conclusion that the document had no
substantive issues? If there was a MIB Doctor, Media Type or other expert
review, what was its course (briefly)? In the case of a Media Type review, on
what date was the request posted?

     There are existing implementations of this extension
     mechanism, known to the document shepherd.

     Dr. Benjamin Smith provided independent verification
     of the example provided in Appendix A, and is
     recognized for this in the acknowledgements.

     No media type, nor MIB doctor, review done, as this
     was not needed


Who is the Document Shepherd? Who is the Responsible Area Director?

     The document shepherd is:
          Thomas Clausen

     The responsible Area Director is:
          Adrian Farrell

(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.

     The document shepherd performed a total of five
     reviews of this document, during WG processing:

     1) Initially, prior to WG adoption

     2) Extensively, following WG adoption, providing
        substantial comments

     3) Extensively, following the author addressed the
        review comments from 2), to satisfaction

     4) Extensively, once WGLC was terminated, considering
        WGLC comments received, which resulted in a
        document revision (-03) fixing nits, format
        issues, and a reference issue.

     5) Finally, a review of the -03 version

     The document shepherd estimates, that the -03 version
     of the document is technically identical to the -02
     version which was WGLCed.

     The document shepherd believes, that the -03 version
     of the document is ready for being forwarded to the

(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of
the reviews that have been performed?

     The document shepherd is satisfied that sufficient
     reviews have been performed.

(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.

     This document addresses security, within the
     framework set forth in RFC7182, and uses RFC6507
     for the cryptographic functions. Both RFC7182 and
     RFC6507 has received extensive scrutiny from the
     security community.

     As such, the document shepherd believes that the
     habitual SEC-DIR review for standards track documents
     is expected — but that no additional reviews are
     necessary, nor beneficial.

(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.

     The document shepherd raised, in his review,
     the question of if “Updates RFC7182” is appropriate.

     The document author and the document shepherd both
     are “on the balance” as to if it is, or is not

     Both parties, however, believe that either way is
     tolerable, and agreed to seek advice from the
     responsible AD on this particular matter

     The argument for “is not appropriate” goes like this:

          What this document does is:
               (i)  only things permissible by RFC7182, and
               (ii) makes registration from IANA registries
                    set up by RFC7182
                    (noting, of course, that RFC7181 doesn’t
                     “Updates 5444” when making registrations
                     for TC messages from the repositories
                     set up by RFC5444 as a case of precedent)

     The argument for “is appropriate” is, that the
     way this document interprets <key-id> might not
     be as is described in RFC7182.

(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?

     The author has confirmed to not be aware of any
     IPR that requires disclosure regarding this specific

(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If so,
summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures.

     There have been no IPR disclosures filed that
     reference this document.

(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?

     As described under Working Group Summary, the
     consensus behind this document appears quite solid.

(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.)

     There have been no threats of appeal raised, nor
     has any extreme discontent been indicated.

(11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this document.
(See and the Internet-Drafts Checklist).
Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be thorough.

     IDNITS raises only concerns on a DOWNREF, addressed
     in 15) below.

(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such
as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.

     Such reviews are not required for this document.

(13) Have all references within this document been identified as either
normative or informative?

(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?


(15) Are there downward normative references references (see RFC 3967)? If so,
list these downward references to support the Area Director in the Last Call

     This document, intended for publication on std.
     track, has a downref to RFC6507, which is published
     as informational.

     RFC6507 does not appear in the downrefergistry
     and must thus be explicitly called out in the
     IETF Last Call.

(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.

     Advice from the responsible AD is sought on if
     this document “Updates RFC7182”, or not, as
     previously indicated.

     If, on the responsible ADs advice, this document
     updates RFC7182, then this is called out in the
     appropriate places.

(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 5226).

     All protocol extensions that the document makes, are
     associated with the appropriate reservations

     Referenced IANA registries have been clearly

     No new IANA registries are created

     The designated expert for the registry confirmed on
     14/09/03 that he finds the registrations
     requested in this document as aggreable:

(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 IANA registries are created.

(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, etc.

     No such checks required nor performed: no XML code,
     BNF rules, MIB definitions, or other formal language
     for which automatic checks exist, is included in this