Shepherd writeup
rfc8600-11

As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document 
Shepherd Write-Up.

Changes are expected over time. This version is dated 24 February 2012.

(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?

Standards Track.
This is indicated so 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 describes how to use the Extensible Messaging and
   Presence Protocol (XMPP) to collect and distribute security-relevant
   information between network-connected devices.  To illustrate the
   principles involved, this document describes such a usage for the
   Incident Object Description Exchange Format (IODEF).

Working Group Summary

   The initial draft was published three years ago. Since then, various
   aspects of this draft has been discussed, and the draft was thoroughly
   revised based on feedback from the audience, including those who
   are familiar with the XMPP base spec. The MILE WG seems to be happy
   with the current form of the document.

Document Quality

   XMPP-GRID works on top of existing XMPP protocol and can use the
   existing XMPP tools.

Personnel

  Takeshi Takahashi is the Document Shepherd and Alexey Melinkov 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 provided his final review as follows:
   https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/mile/current/msg02438.html.
   The issues raised there was addressed in the 07 version of the draft.

(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 on this.
   We once had a discussion on the depth of the review, especially from
   the aspect of XMPP base spec. The authors have invited those who are
   familiar with the base spec, and reflected all the comments received
   from them.

(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.

   It is always nice to receive more review.
   Having said that, the 3-year discussion on this draft was good
   enough for the draft to move forward.

(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 further remaining issue can be found in the MILE discussion
   at this moment.

(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.

   Yes.

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

   No.

(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?   

   During three year discussion of this draft, ideas were discussed
   in the WG in a constructive manner. The MILE WG is rather small,
   and that helped the WG as a whole to understand and agree 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.

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

   This version still contains minor nits, but the editors will reflect
   them in the next version before the IETF last call.

   The boilerplate checks indicate there are 1 error, 0 flaws,
   2 warnings, and 5 comments (all about the references and citations).
   The manual check by the document shephered was done in: 
   https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/mile/current/msg02438.html.

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

   This document does not have any issue that require any external
   formal review, such as MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.


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

   This document has 8 normative references and 4 informative references

(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?

No.

(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. 

No.

(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.

   No.

(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).

(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.

  This document has no actions for IANA.

(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.

   There is no concrete XML code or the likes in this document. The
   snippets shown in this documents are reviewed and no errors were
   found.

Back