# 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?
While OpsSec WG has a relatively low number of participants, it was definitely
a clear consensus that this document shall be published.
2. Was there controversy about particular points, or were there decisions where
the consensus was particularly rough?
No controversy, it was a strong consensus.
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.)
Nobody threatened an appeal or indicated extreme discontent.
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)?
This is not a protocol document, however the approach described in this draft
was used while performing measurements for
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-vyncke-v6ops-james/. The draft's
Acknowledgent section mentions that the early implementation of the proposed
mechanism does exist.
## 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.
I do not think any additional review is required.
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.
The document requests an update to the "Well-Known URIs" IANA registry. The URI
request is straightforward and is made in accordance to RFC8615. A request to
review and implement the proposed changes will be made to
https://github.com/protocol-registries/well-known-uris in parallel with the
IETF Last Call.
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]?
The document doesn't contain any YANG modules.
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.
There are no such sections in the document.
## 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, it is.
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?
The ART area section of that list mentions URI which is applicable for this
draft. However the https://wiki.ietf.org/group/art/TypicalARTAreaIssues doesn't
really talks about any URI-related issues. Anyway an expret review has been
requested for the URI aspect of the draft (see #6 above).
Section 3 of the draft discusses using reverse DNS lookup to build a probe
attribution URI. As https://wiki.ietf.org/group/ops mentions, Assuming that the
"reverse DNS" reflects reality would be too optimisitc. However the draft
suggests this as an alternative option to in-band signalling only.
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?
The draft is indended to be published as an Informational RFC. The attributes
are correct.
12. Have reasonable efforts been made to remind all authors of the intellectual
property rights (IPR) disclosure obligations described in [BCP 79][7]? 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.
All authors have confirmed that they are not aware of any IPR disclosures
related to this draft. Two out of 3 authors announced it on the list:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/opsec/?q=draft-ietf-opsec-probe-attribution%20IPR
Donnet BenoƮt emailed the chairs privately.
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.
The draft has 3 authors, they all confirmed their willingness to be listed as
such.
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.)
The I-D nits tool returns the following warnings:
"There are 6 instances of lines with non-ascii characters in the document" -
this warning can be ignored as those characters are in names and are permitted
as per RFC7997. " Found something which looks like a code comment" - this is
related to the example in the text but it's not CODE.
The draft was reviewed against "Content Guidelines", it follows all guidelines.
15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the [IESG
Statement on Normative and Informative References][16].
The shepherd doesn't believe that any references need to be changed.
16. List any normative references that are not freely available to anyone. Did
the community have sufficient access to review any such normative
references?
All normative references are RFCs and therefore are freely avaialble.
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.
There are no downward references in this document.
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?
There are no such references. All normative references are RFCs.
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.
This document doesn't change status if any existing RFCs.
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]).
This document proposes an update to The "Well-Known URIs" IANA registry.
The required action is to create a new entry in that registry, so all ascpects
of the document are correctly associated with the appropriate IANA
reservations. The reference to the registry is clear, and the content of the
proposed update is specified in accordance with
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc8615#section-3.1
This document doesn't propose any new IANA registries.
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.
No new registries are proposed by this document.
[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/