Shepherd writeup
rfc8000-11

This shepherding write-up is for the following I-D:

draft-ietf-nfsv4-multi-domain-fs-reqs-07.txt

(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?

Proposed Standard


(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 discusses issues relevant to the deployment of the
   NFSv4 protocols in situations allowing for the construction of an
   NFSv4 file namespace supporting the use of multiple NFSv4 domains and
   utilizing multi-domain capable file systems.  Also described are
   constraints on name resolution and security services appropriate to
   the administration of such a system.  Such a namespace is a suitable
   way to enable a Federated File System supporting the use of multiple
   NFSv4 domains.

Working Group Summary

  The working group has been supportive of this work with little contention
  over the approach represented within.  This work is a result of direct
  experience of the authors (and more broadly in the WG) of managing
  multi-domain environments with the result of what solutions are needed
  and what is workable.

Document Quality

  The construction of this document has taken time and the overall content
  and quality are very high.  There were good comments and updates made
  during the last call process and it is very ready for for review by the IESG.

Personnel

  Document Shepherd: Spencer Shepler
  Area Director: Spencer Dawkins

(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 the document and followed the creation and review
  process within the working group.  This document is ready to move forward
  to IESG review.

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

  No concerns from the Shepherd.

(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.

  Given that the document deals with user identity and resulting authentication
  and authorization contexts, the security area should review the document
  for any relevant feedback.

(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 concerns.

(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 disclosures have been filed.

(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?   

  Strong consensus within the working group for this document.

(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 outstanding issues of this type exist.

(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.

  Some minor nits that authors will correct during IESG reviews, etc.

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

  None applicable.

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

  Yes.

(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?

  None.  Note, however, that there are references for two I-Ds that are
  about to be published as RFCs so there will be minor updates for those.


(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. 

  Not applicable.

(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).

  Not applicable.

(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.

  Not applicable.

(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.

  Not applicable.

Back