Skip to main content

Shepherd writeup

As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document
Shepherd Write-Up. Changes are expected over time.

This version is dated 1 November 2019.

(1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard, Internet
Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? Why is this the proper type
of RFC? Is this type of RFC indicated in the title page header?

Proposed Standard. This is the proper type for a simple extension to QUIC.

(2) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document Announcement Write-Up.
Please provide such a Document Announcement Write-Up. Recent examples can be
found in the "Action" announcements for approved documents. The approval
announcement contains the following sections:

Technical Summary:

The draft defines a simple extension to the QUIC transport (RFC 9000), using the
well-defined extension mechanisms. It registers a new DATAGRAM frame type for
unreliable application data and clearly describes how the frame transmission and
reception operates within the loss recovery and detection framework of QUIC.

Working Group Summary:

There are two notable points but clear WG consensus was established through the
development and last call.

The first point is about datagram demultiplexing identifiers. Prior to WG
adoption of this document, earlier drafts included a demultiplexing field in the
DATAGRAM frame. Discussion of the document before adoption led to the field
being removed and the definition of such a field delegated to applications using
datagrams. The topic came up again during the WG activity and we were able to
reach clear consensus to continue delegating the field to applications. In
future, with deployment experience, we may discover patterns of identifiers that
could be incorporated into the transport layer. There was consensus to not block
progress on this draft in order to wait for such experience.

The second point is about DATAGRAM ack-elicitation. Near the time the document
was ready for WGLC, a use case was identified for delaying acknowledgement of
DATAGRAMs. There was some rigourous discussion on this topic, with several
proposals for design change to the datagram specification. In opposition of such
design changes were concerns over unintended consequences to congestion control.
WG discussion identified other ways in which the use case might be addressed,
which harnessed the extensibility mechanisms of the QUIC protocol. Given the
broad range of possible technical solutions, the chairs sought clarity about
whether the group believed the use case needed to be solved in the scope of this
document. A consensus call was issued and the responses established clear
consensus to not work it.

Document Quality:

There are several implementations of the datagram extension and several
interoperable deployments of the datagram extension deployed on the Internet.
This extension provides an unreliable data transport feature that application
protocols can build upon. Within the IETF, the MASQUE and WebTrans WGs have
adopted documents to define such application uses. Other members of the
community are also interested in using this extension.

No special review has been required.


Lucas Pardue is the document shepherd. Zahed Sarker is the AD.

(3) Briefly describe the review of this document that was performed by the
Document Shepherd. If this version of the document is not ready for publication,
please explain why the document is being forwarded to the IESG.

I have reviewed this document thoroughly and implemented the extension. The
scope of the extension is focused and is straightforward to implement for any
person familiar with QUIC.

(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of
the reviews that have been performed?

None. The datagram document has been developed alongside the QUIC core protocol
and has benefitted from relevant and up-to-date review expertise within the WG
and community.

(5) Do portions of the document need review from a particular or from broader
perspective, e.g., security, operational complexity, AAA, DNS, DHCP, XML, or
internationalization? If so, describe the review that took place.

No special review is required.

(6) Describe any specific concerns or issues that the Document Shepherd has with
this document that the Responsible Area Director and/or the IESG should be aware
of? For example, perhaps he or she is uncomfortable with certain parts of the
document, or has concerns whether there really is a need for it. In any event,
if the WG has discussed those issues and has indicated that it still wishes to
advance the document, detail those concerns here.

No specific concerns.

(7) Has each author confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR disclosures
required for full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79 have
already been filed. If not, explain why?

Yes. There are no IPR disclosures for this document.

(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If so,
summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures.

There are no IPR disclosures for this document.

(9) How solid is the WG consensus behind this document? Does it represent the
strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others being silent, or does the
WG as a whole understand and agree with it?

This extension defined in this document has been implemented and deployed by a
wide range of vendors. The notable points described in answer (2) were resolved
within the working group with clear consensus before WGLC. During WGLC only
a handful of editorial issues were raised.

(10) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent?
If so, please summarise 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.)


(11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this document. (See and the Internet-Drafts Checklist).
Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be thorough.

No nits.

(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such
as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.


(13) Have all references within this document been identified as either
normative or informative?


(14) Are there normative references to documents that are not ready for
advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state? If such normative references
exist, what is the plan for their completion?


(15) Are there downward normative references references (see RFC 3967)? If so,
list these downward references to support the Area Director in the Last Call


(16) Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs?
Are those RFCs listed on the title page header, listed in the abstract, and
discussed in the introduction? If the RFCs are not listed in the Abstract and
Introduction, explain why, and point to the part of the document where the
relationship of this document to the other RFCs is discussed. If this
information is not in the document, explain why the WG considers it unnecessary.


(17) 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 protocol extensions that the document makes are associated with the
appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm that any referenced IANA
registries have been clearly identified. Confirm that newly created IANA
registries include a detailed specification of the initial contents for the
registry, that allocations procedures for future registrations are defined, and
a reasonable name for the new registry has been suggested (see RFC 8126).

This document registers a new Transport Parameter. This is a permanent
registration in the range 0x00-0x3f, which requires Standards Action or IESG

This document registers two new QUIC frame types. This is a permanent
registration in the range 0x00-0x3f, which requires Standards Action or IESG

The registrations conform to the registration requirements of IANA.

(18) List any new IANA registries that require Expert Review for future
allocations. Provide any public guidance that the IESG would find useful in
selecting the IANA Experts for these new registries.


(19) Describe reviews and automated checks performed by the Document Shepherd to
validate sections of the document written in a formal language, such as XML
code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, YANG modules, etc.


(20) If the document contains a YANG module, has 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