Thank you for your service as a document shepherd. Among the responsibilities is
answering the questions in this write-up to give helpful context to Last Call
and Internet Engineering Steering Group ([IESG]) reviewers, and your
diligence in completing it is appreciated. The full role of the shepherd is
further described in [RFC 4858]. You will need the cooperation of the authors
and editors to complete these checks.
Note that some numbered items contain multiple related questions; please be sure
to answer all of them.
## 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?
Broad agreement. This document was widely discussed on github, the mailing
list, and at multiple IETF meetings.
2. Was there controversy about particular points, or were there decisions where
the consensus was particularly rough?
Given the nature of the work (versions) and the relationship with version
negotiation, there were some philosophical questions that had to be ironed out,
but ultimately the consensus was not unusually rough.
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.)
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 interoperating implementations which have been reported and
tested through the typical form of social testing on the QUIC dev slack
workspace. This includes major implementers who intend to use it in production.
### 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.
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?
I believe these documents are clearly written, complete, correctly designed,
and ready for AD review.
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?
Proposed Standard; because we believe there is consensus to publish it
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.
Yes, there are no disclosures to file.
13. Has each author, editor, and contributor shown their willingness to be
as such? If the total number of authors and editors on the front page is
greater than five, please provide a justification.
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.)
15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the [IESG
Statement on Normative and Informative References].
Not that I can see.
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, list them.
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.
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]).
The document clearly identifies the registration of new a value in the QUIC
versions registry. While developed in the WG, the document has used values in
the provisional range. Once the document is approved, a value in the permanent
range will be requested for allocation. This document, as a Proposed Standard,
meets the permanent registration criteria.
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.