# Document Shepherd Write-Up for draft-ietf-pquip-hybrid-signature-spectrums
## 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?
There was broad agreement. One participant had some concerns that might not
be met in the current draft, but they were not able to give specific text
to alleviate their conerns; the points they were concerned with should not
block the document.
There were some late comments for the WG Last Call that the authors agreed
with and fixed in the -06 draft.
2. Was there controversy about particular points, or were there decisions where
the consensus was particularly rough?
No.
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.
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 document describes design goals but not specific protocols.
## 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.
The design goals covered here are likely to be of interest to any WG that
is considering using hybrid digital signature mechanisms in a transition
to post-quantum cryptography. It would be useful to hear from those WGs
during IETF Last Call to see if the material here is helpful or needs more
detail on particular hybrid signature schemes.
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 were needed.
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]?
No YANG was used in the preparation of this document.
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.
None were needed.
## 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?
The document will be useful to many WGs who are making choices about hybrid
signature schemes. It is a tad wordy, but that is needed because the concepts
covered are pretty intricate. It is ready for IETF review.
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 should go through normal external reviews.
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?
It is informational, which is correct for this document because the
intention is to help other WGs make their own decisions.
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.
Yes, and none of the authors responded with any applicable IPR.
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.
Each author has been listed on all drafts.
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.)
Nothing remaining other than warnings.
15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the [IESG
Statement on Normative and Informative References][16].
All references are informative, which is reasonable for a document such as this.
16. List any normative references that are not freely available to anyone. Did
the community have sufficient access to review any such normative
references?
N/A
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.
N/A
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
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 does not update or obsolete any other document.
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]).
There are no IANA considerations.
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.