Skip to main content

Shepherd writeup

draft-ietf-mile-rolie shepherd write-up

(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 is being requested for publication as a Standards RFC. It defines
an HTTP and Atom Publishing protocol to exchange information relevant to
security applications.

(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 describes a Resource-Oriented Lightweight Information Exchange
(ROLIE).  Based on a RESTful architecture, security resources are expected to
be maintained in a web-accessible repository structured as Atom Syndication
Format (RFC 4287) feeds.  The document details  extensions to AtomPub (RFC
5023)  and Atom Syndication Format (RFC 4287) to facilitate the sharing of
information relevant to security applications.

Working Group Summary:

The document has undergone working group consensus for publication, and has
been reviewed by several WG participants since its initial adoption as a
working group item.  In addition, implementations have been demonstrated
through the IETF Hackathon.

Document Quality:

This document has been reviewed and revised several times. It is well written
and clear. There were no specific external expert reviews conducted.


Nancy Cam-Winget is acting as the Document Shepherd.  Kathleen is the
Responsible 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.

The document shepherd has followed the working group process and reviewed the
final document and feels this document is ready for IESG review.

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

The document shepherd does not have any concerns about the reviews that were

(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 does not require any special reviews beyond those planned during
the IESG review process.

(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 is comfortable with this document as it represents the
consensus of the working group.

(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 authors have confirmed that they have dealt with all appropriate IPR

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

No IPR disclosures have been 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?

The document represents strong WG consensus.

(10) 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.

There have been no threats of anyone appealing the documents.

(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.

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

There are no formal review criteria for this document.

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

All references are tagged as 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?

Normative references all look fine.

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

There are no downward normative references in the document.

(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.

This document will not change the status of any existing RFC.

(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 specification adds a new entry to the "IETF URN Sub-namespace for Registered
   Protocol Parameter Identifiers" to define the ROLIE 1.0 as a namespace.
It conforms to RFC 3688 in its usage and addition of ROLIE 1.0’s namespace and

The following new registry entry titled "Resource Oriented Lightweight
Information Exchange (ROLIE) Parameters" is defined with its appropriate
definition and sub-entries titled "ROLIE URN Parameters" and “ROLIE Information

Two new registrations are also added to the “Well-Known URI” to add the URI
suffixes “rolie/servicedocument” and “rolie/categorydocument”.

The newly created registries look well defined.

(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.

A there are two new registries to better define the ROLIE capabilities,
categories and information details, it could benefit from better review.  While
the registration and new entries to these new registries will go through the
MILE WG expert review; it would be beneficial to have experts in the URN and
general new IANA assignments to review the process defined in this

(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.

XML snippets were validated using