Skip to main content

Shepherd writeup

PROTO writeup for draft-ietf-marf-authfailure-report

  (1.a) Who is the Document Shepherd for this document? Has the
        Document Shepherd personally reviewed this version of the
        document and, in particular, does he or she believe this
        version is ready for forwarding to the IESG for publication?

I (Murray Kucherawy) am the Document Shepherd.  I have personally reviewed
the document and I believe it is ready for IESG consideration.

  (1.b) Has the document had adequate review both from key WG members
        and from key non-WG members? Does the Document Shepherd have
        any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that
        have been performed?

The document has been through two Working Group Last Calls, including
spontaneous WG reviews and some I solicited directly.  I have no concerns
about any lack in coverage of those reviews.

  (1.c) Does the Document Shepherd have concerns that the document
        needs more review from a particular or broader perspective,
        e.g., security, operational complexity, someone familiar with
        AAA, internationalization or XML?

I have no such concerns.

  (1.d) Does the Document Shepherd have any specific concerns or
        issues 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. Has an IPR disclosure related to this document
        been filed? If so, please include a reference to the
        disclosure and summarize the WG discussion and conclusion on
        this issue.

I have no such concerns.  There are no relevant IPR disclosures of which I am
aware.  The document has a demonstrated need.

  (1.e) 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 as a whole has reviewed it through two WGLCs, including some specific
members that I approached for reviews.  The WG understands its need and
the contexts in which it will be useful.

  (1.f) 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
        entered into the ID Tracker.)

There have been no such indications.

  (1.g) Has the Document Shepherd personally verified that the
        document satisfies all ID nits? (See the Internet-Drafts Checklist
        and Boilerplate checks are
        not enough; this check needs to be thorough. Has the document
        met all formal review criteria it needs to, such as the MIB
        Doctor, media type and URI type reviews?

All such requirements have been met.  No specific review criteria need to
be met for this work.

  (1.h) Has the document split its references into normative and
        informative? 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
        strategy for their completion? Are there normative references
        that are downward references, as described in [RFC3967]? If
        so, list these downward references to support the Area
        Director in the Last Call procedure for them [RFC3967].

The document contains an appropriate normative/informative split of its

There is a normative reference to draft-ietf-marf-redaction which is seeking
Proposed Standard status.  It will advance to the IESG shortly.

There is a downward reference to RFC4408 (SPF), which is Experimental.  The
Working group feels this is acceptable since it is a widely-deployed protocol
(and in fact another working group being chartered now is seeking to move it to
Proposed Standard), and it is used in this document in an optional way.

  (1.i) Has the Document Shepherd verified that the document IANA
        consideration section exists and is consistent with the body
        of the document? If the document specifies protocol
        extensions, are reservations requested in appropriate IANA
        registries? Are the IANA registries clearly identified? If
        the document creates a new registry, does it define the
        proposed initial contents of the registry and an allocation
        procedure for future registrations? Does it suggest a
        reasonable name for the new registry? See [RFC5226]. If the
        document describes an Expert Review process has Shepherd
        conferred with the Responsible Area Director so that the IESG
        can appoint the needed Expert during the IESG Evaluation?

The IANA Considerations section is present and complete; it updates existing
registries as needed by the remainder of the document.

  (1.j) Has the Document Shepherd verified that sections of the
        document that are written in a formal language, such as XML
        code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc., validate correctly in
        an automated checker?

I have run the ABNF through a checker via the WG Chairs' tools page.  Errors
it found have been corrected.

  (1.k) 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 memo registers an extension report type to ARF for use in
   reporting messages that fail one or more authentication checks
   performed on receipt of a message, with the option to include
   forensic information describing the specifics of the failure.

     Working Group Summary

   This memo underwent two Working Group Last Calls because of the amount
   of last-minute feedback generated during the first.  There was no
   controversy of note.

     Document Quality

   There is substantial deployment of ARF, upon which these extensions are
   based.  There is one widely deployed open source implementation of the
   extension with more under development which will see widespread use.
   Reviewers and expressions of intent to support included PayPal and Hotmail.