# Document Shepherd Writeup
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?
This document reached broad agreement across the group.
2. Was there controversy about particular points, or were there decisions where
the consensus was particularly rough?
There was some initial controversy around the role of HTTP intermediaries in
the protocol (are they explicit? what role do they play? what are they allowed
to do or not do with messages sent up or downstream?), though these concerns
were resolved as a byproduct of a Design Team that worked on the document.
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.
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 recommends) or elsewhere (where)?
Yes, there are several interoperable implementations of the document. Some of
them are open source [1,2] whereas others are closed source. Other
implementations can be provided upon request.
[1] https://github.com/google/quiche
[2] https://github.com/facebookincubator/mvfst
5. Does this document need review from other IETF working groups or external
organizations? Have those reviews occurred?
This document is relevant to the QUIC and WebTransport WGs, and both WGs were
included on the WGLC thread, so we believe this review has occurred.
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.
N/A
7. If the document contains a YANG module, has the final version of the module
been checked with any of the recommended validation 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 RFC
8342?
N/A
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.
Wire format details (such as that used to describe the Capsule structure) have
been validated by multiple people.
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, this document is needed, clearly written, complete, correctly designated,
and ready to be handed off to the responsible AD.
10. Several IETF Areas have assembled lists of common issues that their
reviewers encounter. Do any such issues remain that would merit specific
attention from subsequent reviews?
No.
11. What type of RFC publication is being requested on the IETF stream (Best
Current Practice, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard, Informational,
Experimental, or Historic)? Why is this the proper type of RFC? Do all
Datatracker state attributes correctly reflect this intent?
Proposed Standard to match backing standards like RFC 9000. The Datatracker
state attributes correctly reflect this intent.
12. Has the interested community confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR
disclosures required by BCP 78 and BCP 79 have been filed? If not, explain why.
If yes, summarize any discussion and conclusion regarding the intellectual
property rights (IPR) disclosures, including links to relevant emails.
Yes. The authors confirmed that they are not aware of any IPR related to this
draft.
13. Has each Author or Contributor confirmed their willingness to be listed as
such? If the number of Authors/Editors on the front page is greater than 5,
please provide a justification.
Yes. Each author is willing to be listed as such.
14. Identify any remaining I-D nits in this document. (See the idnits tool and
the checkbox items found in Guidelines to Authors of Internet-Drafts). Simply
running the idnits tool is not enough; please review the entire guidelines
document.
There are some id-nits issues remaining but they are due to non-ASCII
characters in names, so they can be resolved by the RPC.
15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa?
No.
16. List any normative references that are not freely available to anyone. Did
the community have sufficient access to review any such normative references?
N/A
17. Are there any normative downward references (see RFC 3967, BCP 97)? If so,
list them.
No.
18. Are there normative references to documents that are not ready for
advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state? If they exist, what is the
plan for their completion?
Yes:
- draft-ietf-httpbis-semantics-19
- draft-ietf-httpbis-messaging-19
- draft-ietf-httpbis-http2bis-07
- draft-ietf-quic-http-34
All documents are moving ahead in the process and we don't expect them to be
significant blockers.
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.
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).
The IANA considerations of the document are complete, clear, and correct. The
new registry for Capsule types is clearly explained, has a well-defined
allocation procedure, and is named reasonably.
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.
The new Capsule type registry will support provisional and permanent
allocations, as per Section 22.1 of RFC9000. Provisional registries require
Expert Review. We recommend David Schinazi and Lucas Pardue as the Designated
Experts. Permanent registries, in contrast, require Prequire Specification
Required.