Shepherd writeup

(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?

	This document seeks Proposed Standard status.  It specifies a
	protocol that requires interoperability to succeed and has not
	been specified before.  The title page so indicates.

(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 memo presents extensions to the Abuse Reporting Format (ARF),
	and Sender Policy Framework (SPF) specifications to allow for
	detailed reporting of message authentication failures in an on-demand
	fashion. This memo updates RFC4408. 

Working Group Summary

	There was little controversy of note. The extensions presented here
	are useful to sites deploying SPF and seeking visibility into
	situations where mail covered by SPF is rejected or otherwise
	affected by local policy.  Demand for this capability is increasing,
	especially from domains that are popular scam targets.

Document Quality

	There are only a couple of known existing implementations, one made
	by a working group participant as the specification solidified to
	prove that it's viable.  There are, however, several vendors that
	intend to implement this specificaiton and its adjuncts
	(draft-ietf-marf-redaction and draft-ietf-marf-dkim-reporting), along
	with other non-MARF specifications that provide this kind of feedback
	to respond to customer demand, upon publication. 


	Murray Kucherawy (marf co-chair) is the Document Shepherd.
	Pete Resnick is the repsonsible 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 have reviewed this document personally, checking its status,
	IANA Considerations, Security Considerations and References.
	I have no concerns outstanding.

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

	In addition to working group reviews, external SPF experts have
	weighed in on mailing lists outside of the IETF.  These reviews
	were taken into account during document development.

(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.

	Apart from the standard SecDir review that will be triggered by
	this request, I don't believe any specific additional reviews
	are required.

(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 such concerns exist.  The document is non-controversial.

(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 knows of no relevant IPR disclosures, existing
	or outstanding, covering this work.

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

	There are no known applicable IPR 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 understands and agrees with it.

(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 appeal threats have been heard.

(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

	Both the ID nits tool and a manual review have identified
	no outstanding problems.

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

	The document does not touch any areas that require any
	formalized reviews.

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

	The References section has been so labeled (see Section 7).

(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?

	There are normative references to documents that are as yet
	unpublished, but they are either already in the RFC Editor
	queue or are approaching the standard post-WG process steps.
	In any case, all relevant document states and paths are clear.

(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 procedure.

	This document makes a normative reference to SPF (RFC4408), which
	is Experimental.  However, SPF has enjoyed widespread deployment,
	and indeed a separate working group is in the process of advancing
	it to the Standards Track.

(16) Will publication of this document change to 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.

	The document updates RFC4408, and indicates such on its title
	page, since it takes an IANA action neglected by that earlier
	specification.  The WG discussed whether or not the SPFbis
	working group should really take that IANA action, but ultimately
	felt that there was no good reason to delay.

(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).

	The IANA Considerations section is complete and matches the
	rest of the document.  It creates a new registry properly
	according to RFC5226 procedure.  I have no outstanding concerns.

(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.

	The registry created by this document does not use
	Expert Review as its update method.

(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.

	Manual and automated reviews of the ABNF rules were performed,
	and no concerns were identified.