# 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?
This document represents a broad agreement of the working group.
> 2. Was there controversy about particular points, or were there decisions where
> the consensus was particularly rough?
This document has strong consensus without any significant points of contention.
The document is intended to address a specific charter point for the PRIVACYPASS
working group: to "specify a HTTP-layer API for the protocol". Initial proposals
defined a REST API, but the proposal was ultimately streamlined to this form. The
working group has a clear consensus that this is the right approach and adequately
addresses the need for an "HTTP-layer API".
> 3. Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent?
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)?
There are deployed examples of the privacy pass architecture. References to
these implementations are included in the architecture document. This includes
two open source implementations that implement pieces of the architecture and vendor
products including private access tokens implemented by Apple, Cloudflare and
Fastly. These implementations communicate using the auth scheme defined in
this document (see e.g. https://developer.apple.com/news/?id=huqjyh7k,
https://www.fastly.com/blog/private-access-tokens-stepping-into-the-privacy-respecting-captcha-less).
This document does not contain any reference to these implementations.
> 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.
Members of the working group also participate in the W3C incubator activities
that may link up to privacy pass.
> 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.
N/A
> 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 is a security-oriented draft, developed in the SEC area. Common security-
related issues have been thoroughly addressed.
> 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". This draft defines a concrete protocol element and syntax
that can be implemented interoperably and enables the use of Privacy Pass tokens
in HTTP. The Datatracker state is 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.
The chairs have contacted the authors and informed them of IPR disclosure.
No IPR disclosures have been made for this document.
> 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. There are three authors.
> 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.)
ID Nits have been reviewed.
> 15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the [IESG
> Statement on Normative and Informative References][16].
The references are classified appropriately.
> 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 to IETF RFCs.
> 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.
No DownREFs.
> 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?
No.
> 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 does not change the status of any other documents.
> 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 instructions are correct and consistent.
> 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.
The instructions to the Designated Experts are clear.
[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/