# Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents
*This version is dated 4 July 2022.*
Thank you for your service as a document shepherd. Among the responsibilities is
answering the questions in this write-up to give helpful context to Last Call
and Internet Engineering Steering Group ([IESG][1]) reviewers, and your
diligence in completing it is appreciated. The full role of the shepherd is
further described in [RFC 4858][2]. You will need the cooperation of the authors
and editors to complete these checks.
Note that some numbered items contain multiple related questions; please be sure
to answer all of them.
to answer all of them.
This writeup covers draft-ietf-mops-ar-use-case-13.
Initial version: 8/18/2023
updated: 10/23/2023
updated: 11/30/2023
Document History
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? Perhaps “strong concurrence by a few” is a fair characterization.
The shepherd will note, however, that the WG is small, its scope is huge, and
the scope of this draft is narrow. For that reason, anything else but a strong
concurrence of a few with silence by the others is to be expected. In this
case, the shepherd does not view this negatively.
2. Was there controversy about particular points, or were there decisions
where the consensus was particularly rough? None.
3. Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme
discontent? AFAIK, no threatened appeals nor otherwise extreme discontent.
Harsh questions were occasionally asked (and answered), but that’s not that
unusual in the IETF :-) 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.) N/A
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)? N/A
Additional Reviews
5. Do the contents of this document closely interact with technologies in
other IETF working groups or external organizations, and would it therefore
benefit from their review? The shepherd is not aware of other IETF WGs working
on AR/VR operational matters. Certain groups in 3GPP (including SA1 and SA4)
have worked on matters similar to this draft, and there’s a certain overlap in
personnel between MOPS participants and participants in those groups. The
shepherd believes that no formal review of the document is required due to its
informal nature and the mentioned overlap in personnel.
Have those reviews occurred? If yes, describe which
reviews took place.
N/A
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.
None of those expert reviews were solicited, nor required (in the shepherd’s
opinion), as the document does not include MIBs, YANG, or media type/URI
registrations.
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. N/A
Document Shepherd Checks
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 to all of the
question. Elaborating on the “need” for this document: to the best knowledge of
the shepherd, no similar document exists; not in the IETF, not in 3GPP, and not
in academic circles. OTOH, a great deal of uncertainty and lack of
understanding exists when it comes to operational aspects of forthcoming AR/VR
applications, especially when they involve edge computing. Therefore, while
the term “needed” may be debatable, without doubt the document should be useful
to some.
10. Several IETF Areas have assembled lists of common issues that their
reviewers encounter. For which areas have such issues been identified
and addressed? For which does this still need to happen in subsequent
reviews?
On 10/27/2023, the authors indicated in a word attachment to an email to the
MOPS list “We have reviewed the lists of common issues and can confirm that
these issues are not relevant to our draft.” The shepherd’s opinion is that
aligned with the above.
11. What type of RFC publication is being requested on the IETF stream (Best
Current Practice, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard,
Informational, Experimental or Historic)?
Informational
Why is this the proper type
of RFC?
The document does not normatively define anything.
Do all Datatracker state attributes correctly reflect this intent?
With the submission of -13, the datatracker was updated 10/22/23 to reflect
status: informational, and to correct the email addresses/affiliations.
12. Have reasonable efforts been made to remind all authors of the
intellectual property rights (IPR) disclosure obligations described in BCP 79?
The shepherd requested a statement of compliance with BCP79, and such
statements were received from both authors around 8/13 on the MOPS mailing list.
To
the best of your knowledge, have all required disclosures been filed?
Yes.
If
not, explain why. If yes, summarize any relevant discussion, including links
to publicly-available messages when applicable.
N/A
13. Has each author, editor, and contributor shown their willingness to be
listed as such? Each author has consented per emails received 8/11 and 8/13.
If the total number of authors and editors on the front page
is greater than five, please provide a justification.
N/A
14. Document any remaining I-D nits in this document. Simply running the
idnits tool is not enough; please review the "Content Guidelines" on
authors.ietf.org. (Also note that the current idnits tool generates some
incorrect warnings; a rewrite is underway.) Version 14 passes idnits. The
previously missing empty IANA section has been added.
15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the
IESG Statement on Normative and Informative References. As the document is
informational in nature and targets to become an informational RFC, only
informational references make sense here. Therefore, all references are
informational.
16. List any normative references that are not freely available to anyone.
Did the community have sufficient access to review any such normative
references? Most references in this document refer to academic papers and their
access requires passing the usual hurdles—membership in the academic
organization (and relevant chapter), library access, or payment of a nominal
download fee. The shepherd believes that these are not insurmountable hurdles.
Referred standards documents (from 3GPP and the IETF) are available for
download.
17. Are there any normative downward references (see RFC 3967 and BCP
97) that are not already listed in the DOWNREF registry? If so,
list them.
N/A as there are no normative references
18. Are there normative references to documents that are not ready to be
submitted to the IESG for publication or are otherwise in an unclear state?
If so, what is the plan for their completion?
N/A as there are no normative references
19. Will publication of this document change the status of any existing
RFCs? No 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. N/A
20. Describe the document shepherd's review of the IANA considerations
section, especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the
document. A dummy IANA section is present. Nothing else is needed.
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).
N/A
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.
N/A