# 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.
## 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?
The draft reached broad agreement, as ascertained through both IETF session
participation and mailing list/GitHub discussion. Quite a few folks raised
[issues on
GitHub](https://github.com/ietf-wg-ohai/oblivious-http/issues?q=is%3Aissue+is%3Aclosed).
Key decisions were surfaced on the mailing list.
2. Was there controversy about particular points, or were there decisions where
the consensus was particularly rough?
There were a few topics that required in-depth discussion:
1. [Bad Key
Configuration](https://github.com/ietf-wg-ohai/oblivious-http/issues/194): It
was resolved in https://github.com/ietf-wg-ohai/oblivious-http/pull/196 2.
[Asynchronous Submission Use
Case](https://github.com/ietf-wg-ohai/oblivious-http/issues/179): A new draft
was created to address this use-case:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-wood-ohai-unreliable-ohttp/ 3. [Signals
from server to proxy or vice
versa](https://github.com/ietf-wg-ohai/oblivious-http/issues/114): being
handled in a separate draft, and
https://github.com/ietf-wg-ohai/oblivious-http/pull/113/files has text around
proxy responsibilities
Apart from GitHub, these topics were either discussed on-list or during WG
session. Ultimately there was clear consensus on how to resolve these issues.
There was a late-breaking change that was raised by the authors. The chairs,
authors and AD discussed this and decided to do a [quick second WGLC for the
fix](https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ohai/8yoSxqIerxTN77N_4m773UHB20o/).
There was consensus to include the fix.
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.)
None.
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][3] recommends) or elsewhere
(where)?
There are implementations in [Rust](https://github.com/martinthomson/ohttp) and
[Go](https://github.com/chris-wood/ohttp-go). Apple iOS 16 includes OHTTP.
Cloudflare (https://github.com/cloudflare/app-relay), Fastly
(https://developer.chrome.com/en/blog/oblivious-http-for-k-anon-server-with-fastly/)
and Brave have implementations as well for the server. [Chromium has
shipped](https://source.chromium.org/chromium/chromium/src/+/main:net/third_party/quiche/src/quiche/oblivious_http/oblivious_http_client.h)
client-side support for OHTTP.
Links to implementations have been added to 'Additional Resources' on
Datatracker.
## 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? Have those reviews occurred? If yes, describe which
reviews took place.
This document interacts with HTTP WG and in general the SEC area. Participants
from the HTTP and security communities were actively involved in the
development of the document.
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.
IANA Media Type and HTTP Problem Type registries will require update:
https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-ohai-ohttp-05.html#name-iana-considerations.
We've [asked for early
review](https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/media-types/u3_F6Ff79amaD1AbOS_PVOfnz3I/)
on the media-types mailing list.
7. If the document contains a YANG module, has the final version of the module
been checked with any of the [recommended validation tools][4] 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][5]?
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.
10. Several IETF Areas have assembled [lists of common issues that their
reviewers encounter][6]. For which areas have such issues been identified
and addressed? For which does this still need to happen in subsequent
reviews?
This document overlaps most with ART and SEC areas, and has had review and
participation from both communities.
11. What type of RFC publication is being requested on the IETF stream ([Best
Current Practice][12], [Proposed Standard, Internet Standard][13],
[Informational, Experimental or Historic][14])? Why is this the proper type
of RFC? Do all Datatracker state attributes correctly reflect this intent?
Proposed Standard, because it involves multiple parties (client, relay,
gateway) implementing a commonly-understood protocol. Yes, the datatracker
reflects that intent.
12. Have reasonable efforts been made to remind all authors of the intellectual
property rights (IPR) disclosure obligations described in [BCP 79][8]? To
the best of your knowledge, have all required disclosures been filed? If
not, explain why. If yes, summarize any relevant discussion, including links
to publicly-available messages when applicable.
The authors have confirmed that no IPR exists to their knowledge.
13. Has each author, editor, and contributor shown their willingness to be
listed as such? If the total number of authors and editors on the front page
is greater than five, please provide a justification.
Yes.
14. Document any remaining I-D nits in this document. Simply running the [idnits
tool][8] is not enough; please review the ["Content Guidelines" on
authors.ietf.org][15]. (Also note that the current idnits tool generates
some incorrect warnings; a rewrite is underway.)
There is a downref to a CFRG document, RFC 9180 (HPKE).
15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the [IESG
Statement on Normative and Informative References][16].
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?
None.
17. Are there any normative downward references (see [RFC 3967][9] and [BCP
97][10]) that are not already listed in the [DOWNREF registry][17]? If so,
list them.
RFC 9180, as mentioned above.
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?
None.
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.
None.
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][11]).
The IANA considerations section looks accurate.
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
[1]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/
[2]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4858.html
[3]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7942.html
[4]: https://trac.ietf.org/trac/ops/wiki/yang-review-tools
[5]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8342.html
[6]: https://trac.ietf.org/trac/iesg/wiki/ExpertTopics
[7]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp79
[8]: https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/
[9]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3967.html
[10]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp97
[11]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8126.html
[12]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-5
[13]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.1
[14]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.2
[15]: https://authors.ietf.org/en/content-guidelines-overview
[16]:
https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/normative-informative-references/
[17]: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/downref/