Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents
This version is dated 4 July 2022.
The WGLC for RNFD was announced and minuted (
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/minutes-interim-2024-roll-03-202405221400/),
but the formal announcement email was not sent or was not delivered to the
WG mailing list. However, the WG was aware of the document’s progression,
as evidenced by the “Publication Requested” email (
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/roll/UbkorB6wD3eKwj2mPZtwFB1sBsE/)
and prior discussions.
Once this issue was discovered, the WG was notified (
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/roll/z-gn_pCwX3QuFeQ-M0zH6g4e6QI/)
and given the opportunity to raise any concerns during the IETF Last Call.
No concerns were raised by WG participants (to be confirmed after the IETF
LC concludes). Given this, the chairs, AD, and shepherd believe that the WG
has consensus to publish.
>Document History
>Does the working group (WG) consensus represent the strong concurrence of a
>few individuals, with others being silent, or did it reach broad agreement?
>
>Was there controversy about particular points, or were there decisions where
>the consensus was particularly rough?
The document was not extensively reviewed (by numbers), as the ROLL WG only
has about seven active members. The document came from a new contributor,
and was well received and reviewed by the small community.
Consensus was not rough.
>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 appeals or threats of appeal.
>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
>(where)?
The authors have done an implementation.
>Additional Reviews
>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 are no specific IETF WGs that need to review.
>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 of these apply.
>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?
No YANG module.
>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 required.
>Document Shepherd Checks
>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 deals with a specific need that has been observed from field
deployments of RFC6550. It likely has applicability to RFC8994 as well.
>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
>reviews?
No common issues.
>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
>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.
>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.
>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.)
No nits
>Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the IESG
>Statement on Normative and Informative References.
Looks good to me.
>List any normative references that are not freely available to anyone. Did
>the community have sufficient access to review any such normative
>references?
There are none.
>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.
none.
>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?
None.
> Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs?
No.
> Describe the document shepherd's review of the IANA considerations section,
> especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the document.
One allocation is made, and it looks correct.
> 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.
No new registries.