draft-ietf-sacm-requirements shepherd write-up
(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?
This document is being requested for publication as an Informational RFC. It provides requirements for the Secure Automation and Continuous Monitoring (SACM) architecture, data model, and transport protocols. The intended status is shown on the title page.
(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:
This document defines the scope and set of requirements for the Secure Automation and Continuous Monitoring (SACM) architecture, data model and transport protocols. The requirements and scope are based on the agreed upon use cases.
Working Group Summary:
The document has clear working group consensus for publication, and has been reviewed by several WG participants since its initial adoption as a working group item.
This document has been reviewed and revised many times. It is well written and clear. There were no specific external expert reviews conducted.
Karen O'Donoghue is acting as the Document Shepherd. Kathleen is the Responsible Area Director.
(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.
The document shepherd has followed the working group process and reviewed the final document and feels this document is ready for IESG review.
(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed?
The document shepherd does not have any concerns about the reviews that were performed.
(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.
This document does not require any special reviews beyond those planned during the IESG review process.
(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.
The Document Shepherd is comfortable with this document as a set of requirements to drive the SACM working group efforts in the future. The documents represent the consensus of the working group.
(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?
The authors have confirmed that they have dealt with all appropriate IPR disclosures.
(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures.
No IPR disclosures have been filed that reference 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?
The document represents strong WG consensus.
(10) 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.
There have been no threats of anyone appealing the documents.
(11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this document. (See http://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be thorough.
== The copyright year in the IETF Trust and authors Copyright Line does not match the current year
-- The document date (December 27, 2016) is 131 days in the past. Is this intentional?
This is an artifact of the delay in writing the shepherd report. The document was published in December 2016. When revised based on comments received, the dates will be correct.
== Outdated reference: A later version (-12) exists of draft-ietf-sacm-terminology-11
This is also an artifact of the delay in writing the shepherd report. It will be corrected when a final way forward for the terminology reference is determined.
(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.
There are no formal review criteria for this document.
(13) Have all references within this document been identified as either normative or informative?
All references are tagged as 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?
There is currently a normative reference to a work in progress document (Birkholz, H., Lu, J., Strassner, J., and N. Cam-Winget, "Secure Automation and Continuous Monitoring (SACM) Terminology", draft-ietf-sacm-terminology-11 (work in progress), September 2016.) As part of the shepherd review, I am not sure how to proceed here, and I look to the AD for guidance. Since the intention is not to finish the terminology document anytime soon, it should not be listed as a normative reference.
(15) Are there downward normative references (see RFC 3967)? If so, list these downward references to support the Area Director in the Last Call procedure.
There are no downward normative references in the document.
(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.
This document will not change the status of any existing RFC.
(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 5226).
There are no new IANA considerations contained in this document.
(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.
There are no new IANA considerations contained in this document.
(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, etc.
There are no formal language sections in this document.