EAT Media Types
draft-ietf-rats-eat-media-type-12

[Ballot comment]
Thank you for the work on this document.

Thank you for addressing my DISCUSS and posting the registration request to the media-types mailing list.

I am following discussions regarding the UCCS doc draft-ietf-rats-uccs-10 (especially see Orie's and my ballots), and I believe changes to that document may affect this document. I suggest the responsible AD to hold this doc until that one is also approved.

[Ballot comment]
I support Francesca's DISCUSS.

I suggest dropping your use of BCP 14, for two reasons:

(a) You only use one MUST, which could be shed without loss of force by changing "MUST use" to "uses";

(b) I think the use of MUST in the media type templates is not appropriate because, when those are copied verbatim to the registry, the BCP 14 template isn't going to be there to explain what "MUST" (in all caps) means.

[Ballot comment]
# Orie Steele, ART AD, comments for draft-ietf-rats-eat-media-type-11
CC @OR13

* line numbers:
  - https://author-tools.ietf.org/api/idnits?url=https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-rats-eat-media-type-11.txt&submitcheck=True

* comment syntax:
  - https://github.com/mnot/ietf-comments/blob/main/format.md

* "Handling Ballot Positions":
  - https://ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-ballot-positions/

Thanks to Yoshiro Yoneya for the ARTART Review.

I agree with the comments from Eric, Roman and Francesca.

I support Francesca's DISCUSS.

I can see how the UCCS tags are used in the context of EAT, but I do not see how application/uccs+cbor is used in RATS, or when it would be preferred to application/eat-ucs+cbor.

Since I am still holding a discuss on the UCCS draft:

https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rats/MXkaNqo9WhrTVjY2g7AEjno0PBM/

I will leave this ballot position as no objection, but I would ask that when you submit your registration review for these media types, you draw attention to the registration review for application/uccs+cbor which is here:

https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/media-types/Txlf2LFo4C9goydmECFDwxDnqYg/

And explain to the DEs why both registrations are necessary, and under which circumstances they should be used... and ideally this is also reflected in BOTH documents.

[Ballot comment]
# Orie Steele, ART AD, comments for draft-ietf-rats-eat-media-type-11
CC @OR13

* line numbers:
  - https://author-tools.ietf.org/api/idnits?url=https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-rats-eat-media-type-11.txt&submitcheck=True

* comment syntax:
  - https://github.com/mnot/ietf-comments/blob/main/format.md

* "Handling Ballot Positions":
  - https://ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-ballot-positions/

Thanks to Yoshiro Yoneya for the ARTART Review.

I agree with the comments from Eric, Roman and Francesca.

I support Francesca's DISCUSS.

I can see how the UCCS tags are used in the context of EAT, but I do not see how application/uccs+cbor is used in RATS, or when it would be preferred to application/eat-ucs+cbor.

Since I am still holding a discuss on the UCCS draft:

https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rats/MXkaNqo9WhrTVjY2g7AEjno0PBM/

I will leave ballot position as no objection, but I would ask that when you submit your registration review for these media types, you draw attention to the registration review for application/uccs+cbor which is here:

https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/media-types/Txlf2LFo4C9goydmECFDwxDnqYg/

And explain to the DEs why both registrations are necessary, and under which circumstances they should be used... and ideally this is also reflected in BOTH documents.

[Ballot discuss]
Thank you for the work on this document.

First of all, I have looked for media type reviews in the media-types mailing list, and could not find the registration request posted. As specified by RFC6838, it is strongly encouraged to post the media type registration to the
media-types mailing list for review (see https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/media-types/1hOBaaTVCfl-M3uHmu2a7Q5Ogzk/ for an example of a registration review). If I missed it, my apologies. If not, please post to the media-types mailing list, and I will remove the discuss with no objections raised in a week or so. Please make sure to copy-paste the full sections 6.3 and following (not just a pointer to them) in your mail to media-types.

[Ballot comment]
Additionally, I have to agree with Orie in his latest email regarding defining UJCS, in reply to his DISCUSS ballot to draft-ietf-rats-uccs-10 (https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rats/MXkaNqo9WhrTVjY2g7AEjno0PBM/). It feels like draft-ietf-rats-uccs "informatively defines" UJCS (which is obviously an oxymoron, you answer to that by saying that you are not defining anything new but just giving it a name...), while this document registers a media type for it, while "normatively" defining it as:

> we use the abbreviation "UJCS" to refer to unprotected JWT Claims Sets as defined in Section 2 of [JWT].

but without adding any of the requirements and normative statements that exist for UCCS. This still leaves me uneasy.

[Ballot comment]

# Éric Vyncke, INT AD, comments for draft-ietf-rats-eat-media-type-11

Thank you for the work put into this document.

Please find below some non-blocking COMMENT points (but replies would be appreciated even if only for my own education).

Special thanks to Kathleen Moriarty for the shepherd's detailed write-up including the WG consensus and the justification of the intended status.

Other thanks to Jouni Korhonen, the IoT directorate reviewer:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/review-ietf-rats-eat-media-type-10-iotdir-lc-korhonen-2024-10-09/ (and I have read Thomas' reply)

I hope that this review helps to improve the document,

Regards,

-éric

# COMMENTS (non-blocking)

## Section 1

I was unable to find any normative language about the use of those media types, not even "MAY" use. Section 3 has a single "MUST", which is only about the quoted-string encoding.

## Section 3

Please bear with my ignorance of OID, but it seems to me that draft-ietf-rats-eat-31 states that only the PEN should be used in the OID (to compress), so the example of `eat_profile=2.999.1` in this document refers to an existing company (IBM) per https://www.iana.org/assignments/enterprise-numbers/. If I understand correctly, then please use another PEN or the documentation PEN 32473 (per RFC 5612). 

## Section 5

Suggest using "MUST" in `The application must verify that the received data matches the expected format`. Also, what should the application do in this does not match?

[Ballot comment]
Thank you to Christer Holmberg for the GENART review.

** Section 6.7
  Optional parameters:  "eat_profile" (EAT profile in string format.
      OIDs MUST use the dotted-decimal notation.  The parameter value is
      case-insensitive.)

-- Is using RFC2119 key words in an IANA template the right thing to do?  Perhaps add this keyword to Section 3 instead:

OLD
The value of the eat_profile claim is either an OID or a URI

NEW
The value of the eat_profile claim MUST be either an OID or a URI.  If an OID is used, it MUST use the dotted-decimal notation).

-- Why is there guidance in the IANA template about the OID, but nothing saying it also needs to be a URI?  It might be clearer to provide guidance on the format of this parameter in only one place (Section 3).

** Section 6.9
  TBD1..6 are to be assigned from the space 256..999.

s/999/9999/ as that is the full range for IETF Review code points.  Or is the request really to get a <1000 code point?

(Via drafts-lastcall@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

IANA has completed its review of draft-ietf-rats-eat-media-type-10. If any part of this review is inaccurate, please let us know.

IANA understands that, upon approval of this document, there are three actions which we must complete.

IANA has a question about the second action requested in the IANA Considerations section of this document.

First, in the Structured Syntax Suffixes registry located at:

https://www.iana.org/assignments/media-type-structured-suffix/

a single new suffix is to be registered as follows:

Name: CBOR Web Token (CWT)
+suffix: +cwt
References: [ RFC-to-be ]
Encoding Considerations: binary
Interoperability Considerations:
Fragment Identifier Considerations: The syntax and semantics of fragment identifiers specified for +cwt SHOULD be as specified for application/cwt. (At publication of this document, there is no fragment identification syntax defined for application/cwt.)
Security Considerations: [ RFC-to-be; Section 8 ]
Contact: RATS WG mailing list (rats@ietf.org), or IETF Security Area (saag@ietf.org)
Author/Change Controller: Remote ATtestation ProcedureS (RATS) Working Group / IETF

As this document requests registrations in an Expert Review or Specification Required (see RFC 8126) registry, we have initiated the required Expert Review via a separate request. This review must be completed before the document's IANA state can be changed to "IANA OK."

Second, in the application namespace of the Media Types registry located at:

https://www.iana.org/assignments/media-types/

six new application media types will be registered as follows:

Name: eat+cwt
Template: [ TBD-at-Registration ]
Reference: [ RFC-to-be; Section 6.3 ]

Name: eat+jwt
Template: [ TBD-at-Registration ]
Reference: [ RFC-to-be; Section 6.4 ]

Name: eat-bun+cbor
Template: [ TBD-at-Registration ]
Reference: [ RFC-to-be; Section 6.5 ]

Name: eat-bun+json
Template: [ TBD-at-Registration ]
Reference: [ RFC-to-be; Section 6.6 ]

Name: eat-ucs+cbor
Template: [ TBD-at-Registration ]
Reference: [ RFC-to-be; Section 6.7 ]

Name: eat-ucs+json
Template: [ TBD-at-Registration ]
Reference: [ RFC-to-be; Section 6.8 ]

IANA Question --> IANA has a question about the references for each of these media type registration. Section 6.2 of [ RFC-to-be ] lists the references for each registration as above. However, in Section 6.3 through 6.8 of [ RFC-to-be ] the authors declare the references to be Section 6.2. Which of these is correct?

Third, in the CoAP Content-Formats registry in the Constrained RESTful Environments (CoRE) Parameters registry group located at:

https://www.iana.org/assignments/core-parameters/

six new Content Formats are to be registered from the 256-999 range of the registry as follows:

Content-Type: application/eat+cwt
Content Coding:
ID: [ TBD-at-Registration ]
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

Content-Type: application/eat+jwt
Content Coding:
ID: [ TBD-at-Registration ]
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

Content-Type: application/eat-bun+cbor
Content Coding:
ID: [ TBD-at-Registration ]
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

Content-Type: application/eat-bun+json
Content Coding:
ID: [ TBD-at-Registration ]
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

Content-Type: application/eat-ucs+cbor
Content Coding:
ID: [ TBD-at-Registration ]
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

Content-Type: application/eat-ucs+json
Content Coding:
ID: [ TBD-at-Registration ]
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

We understand that these are the only actions required to be completed upon approval of this document.

NOTE: The actions requested in this document will not be completed until the document has been approved for publication as an RFC. This message is meant only to confirm the list of actions that will be performed.

For definitions of IANA review states, please see:

https://datatracker.ietf.org/help/state/draft/iana-review

Thank you,

David Dong
IANA Services Sr. Specialist

The following Last Call announcement was sent out (ends 2024-10-10):

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC: Kathleen.Moriarty.ietf@gmail.com, debcooley1@gmail.com, draft-ietf-rats-eat-media-type@ietf.org, rats-chairs@ietf.org, rats@ietf.org
Reply-To: last-call@ietf.org
Sender:
Subject: Last Call:  (EAT Media Types) to Proposed Standard


The IESG has received a request from the Remote ATtestation ProcedureS WG
(rats) to consider the following document: - 'EAT Media Types'
  as Proposed Standard

The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits final
comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the
last-call@ietf.org mailing lists by 2024-10-10. Exceptionally, comments may
be sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the beginning
of the Subject line to allow automated sorting.

Abstract


  Payloads used in Remote Attestation Procedures may require an
  associated media type for their conveyance, for example when used in
  RESTful APIs.

  This memo defines media types to be used for Entity Attestation
  Tokens (EAT).




The file can be obtained via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-rats-eat-media-type/



No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D.

# Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents

*This version is dated 4 July 2022.*

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][1]) reviewers, and your
diligence in completing it is appreciated. The full role of the shepherd is
further described in [RFC 4858][2]. 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?

The document is straightforward and has reached working group consensus.

2. Was there controversy about particular points, or were there decisions where
  the consensus was particularly rough?

No, while several comments were made in last call, they were easily resolved.
IANA considerations were worked through during the last call period with an agreed upon result.

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)?

There is a demand for the registry of the new media types due to dependencies
and implementations that rely on the publication into the registry.

## 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.

There was cross WG review and the W3C (per Mike Jones) is in need of the Media Type
registry additions from this document as well. They have reviewed and this also
meets their needs.

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.

Media types are being requested and will be reviewed as part of the request process
of the media type experts to extend the registry.
The media type review occurred, agreed changes were made during the WG 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]?
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.

## 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. I made several recommendations for cleanup that were accepted.

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 Media Type requirements have been reviewed by the authors and WG.

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?

Standards track due to the request for new media type definitions.

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, each author responded on the RATS mailing list when asked about
IPR disclosures and none were identified.

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 3 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.)

15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the [IESG
    Statement on Normative and Informative References][16].

The informative and normative references are appropriate.

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, other documents have this as a dependency as it is a simple draft with a narrow
focus.

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.
The UUCS draft is referenced in this draft and it's just ahead of
this in the queue, in IESG Review. https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-rats-uccs/

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 section is as expected.

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.

Media Type registrations are requested and require the review process
specified in BCP13, specification required (this document) and reviewed
by the designated expert.


[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://wiki.ietf.org/group/ops/yang-review-tools
[5]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8342.html
[6]: https://wiki.ietf.org/group/iesg/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/

# Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents

*This version is dated 4 July 2022.*

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][1]) reviewers, and your
diligence in completing it is appreciated. The full role of the shepherd is
further described in [RFC 4858][2]. 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?

The document is straightforward and has reached working group consensus.

2. Was there controversy about particular points, or were there decisions where
  the consensus was particularly rough?

No, while several comments were made in last call, they were easily resolved.
IANA considerations were worked through during the last call period with an agreed upon result.

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)?

There is a demand for the registry of the new media types due to dependencies
and implementations that rely on the publication into the registry.

## 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.

There was cross WG review and the W3C (per Mike Jones) is in need of the Media Type
registry additions from this document as well. They have reviewed and this also
meets their needs.

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.

Media types are being requested and will be reviewed as part of the request process
of the media type experts to extend the registry.
The media type review occurred, agreed changes were made during the WG 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]?
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.

## 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. I made several recommendations for cleanup that were accepted.

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 Media Type requirements have been reviewed by the authors and WG.

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?

Standards track due to the request for new media type definitions.

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, each author responded on the RATS mailing list when asked about
IPR disclosures and none were identified.

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 3 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.)

15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the [IESG
    Statement on Normative and Informative References][16].

The informative and normative references are appropriate.

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, other documents have this as a dependency as it is a simple draft with a narrow
focus.

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.
The UUCS draft is referenced in this draft and it's just ahead of
this in the queue, in IESG Review. https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-rats-uccs/

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 section is as expected.

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.

Media Type registrations are requested and require the review process
specified in BCP13, specification required (this document) and reviewed
by the designated expert.


[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://wiki.ietf.org/group/ops/yang-review-tools
[5]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8342.html
[6]: https://wiki.ietf.org/group/iesg/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/

# Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents

*This version is dated 4 July 2022.*

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][1]) reviewers, and your
diligence in completing it is appreciated. The full role of the shepherd is
further described in [RFC 4858][2]. 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?

The document is straightforward and has reached working group consensus.

2. Was there controversy about particular points, or were there decisions where
  the consensus was particularly rough?

No, while several comments were made in last call, they were easily resolved.

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)?

There is a demand for the registry of the new media types due to dependencies
and implementations that rely on the publication into the registry.

## 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.

There was cross WG review and the W3C (per Mike Jones) is in need of the Media Type
registry additions from this document as well. They have reviewed and this also
meets their needs.

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.

Media types are being requested and will be reviewed as part of the request process
of the media type experts to extend the registry.

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.

## 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. I made several recommendations for cleanup that were accepted.

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 Media Type requirements have been reviewed by the authors and WG.

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?

Standards track due to the request for new media type definitions.

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, each author responded on the RATS mailing list when asked about
IPR disclosures and none were identified.

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 3 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.)

15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the [IESG
    Statement on Normative and Informative References][16].

The informative and normative references are appropriate.

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, other documents have this as a dependency as it is a simple draft with a narrow
focus.

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.
The UUCS draft is referenced in this draft and it's just ahead of
this in the queue, in IESG Review. https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-rats-uccs/

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 section is as expected.

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.

Media Type registrations are requested and require the review process
specified in BCP13, specification required (this document) and reviewed
by the designated expert.


[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://wiki.ietf.org/group/ops/yang-review-tools
[5]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8342.html
[6]: https://wiki.ietf.org/group/iesg/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/