# Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents
*This version is dated 4 July 2022.*
## 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 is the result of a multi-year effort to
udpate RFC4880 that stumbled at points, but in the
end has broad agreement. The shepherd/chairs consider
it important to get this document out of the WG so
it gets finished - if we processed all nits first
then there's a significant danger that people will
start to want to make changes again that could
result in not finishing the work. WG participants
are explicitly ok with that apporach as they
also recognise the risk of not finishing (again;-).
2. Was there controversy about particular points, or were there decisions where
the consensus was particularly rough?
The main (recent) controversy was when an important
implemention decided they no longer supported some of
the changes incorporated in the draft. Others however
continued to support the draft. There was a specific
poll of the WG to establish that we had consensus to
continue with this draft in October 2022. That poll
had significant engagement from WG participants and
concluded that we did have consensus for finishing
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.)
No appeal has been threatened. The people associated
with the implemention mentioned above continue to be
unhappy with aspects of the draft. (That's all public
on the WG list.)
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
There are multiple implementations that were
used to produce the examples in the draft.
The OpenPGP interoperability test suite is
coordinated by the Sequoia project at:
## 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.
Not needed. The OpenPGP community are engaged.
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.
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]?
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.
## 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?
This is ready. It's a complex spec with a lot of history
so it'll be no surprise if AD review/IETF LC or IESG
review throw up some issues related to clarity etc.
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
11. What type of RFC publication is being requested on the IETF stream ([Best
Current Practice], [Proposed Standard, Internet Standard],
[Informational, Experimental or Historic])? Why is this the proper type
of RFC? Do all Datatracker state attributes correctly reflect this intent?
12. Have reasonable efforts been made to remind all authors of the intellectual
property rights (IPR) disclosure obligations described in [BCP 79]? 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.
Mail to check sent to authors. All authors reponded and none
have IPR to declare.
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.
All good afaik.
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.)
There are nits. We'll correct 'em as processing continues.
15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the [IESG
Statement on Normative and Informative References].
16. List any normative references that are not freely available to anyone. Did
the community have sufficient access to review any such normative
17. Are there any normative downward references (see [RFC 3967] and [BCP
97]) that are not already listed in the [DOWNREF registry]? If so,
All good I think.
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?
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.
Yes, but all good.
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]).
IANA changes (vs. RFC4880) were discussed by the
WG and agreed.
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.
There are new registries but we think the DE instructions
are clear. We'll work with our AD on suggested DE folk