Shepherd writeup for draft-ietf-scim-device-model-11
# 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?
There is general consensus in the SCIM participants with broad agreement to
move this document forward.
2. Was there controversy about particular points, or were there decisions where
the consensus was particularly rough?
No controversy. Initial discussions were aligned to the use cases that drove
the re-chartering of the working group; since this draft's adoption, there was
been discussion, clarifications and early reviews from both the IoT and
Security directorates whose comments have been addressed.
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)?
Yes, there are several implementations, beginning with the open source
code at https://github.com/iot-onboarding/tiedie (OSS). There are some
commercial implementations based on recent drafts but are awaiting for the
publication of this draft.
## 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.
No
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.
Beyond the working group reviews, this draft received early reviews by both the
SECdir and IOTdir to ensure expert reviews were done to ensure draft direction
and readiness.
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]?
No, YANG is not used or specified in this draft.
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.
None was needed.
## 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 have reviewed the document and believe it is ready for Area Directory review.
The authors will have to work with IANA and assign reviewer/approvers (subject
matter experts) to assist assignment of future requests to the new resource
type registry.
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?
This draft received early reviews by both the SECdir and IOTdir to ensure
security and privacy considerations were on the proper track; similarly as this
draft defines the means for identifying, especially, constrained devices a
review by the IOTdir was requested. As it was an early draft, the IOTdir
provided good reviews and noted it was technically on the right track. There
was discussion and follow-up between the SECdir and the draft authors to
resolve the commenters concerns on use case and security considerations.
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?
Request is for “Proposed Standard”, the datatracker and draft reflect the
intent.
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, we did a query to the SCIM mail list as well as a unicast request to the
draft authors and no IPR disclosures were submitted or known to the
participants.
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.
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.)
The SCIM Device Model draft appears to follow the I-D style guidelines. The
draft appears to make proper use of RFC2119 for normative statements. Idnits is
reporting some erroneous warnings to acronyms as being downref or missing
references. There is an encoding issue of one character which the authors hope
the rfc editor can help correct at that stage.
15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the [IESG
Statement on Normative and Informative References][16].
None were identified.
16. List any normative references that are not freely available to anyone. Did
the community have sufficient access to review any such normative
references?
All normative references are freely available.
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.
None were identified.
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?
None were identified.
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.
No
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]).
This draft extends the SCIM core schema to allow for a new resource type,
described in Section 8.1 of the draft. Rather than creating an extension, a
new IANA registry is defined to allow for devices to be defined by their own
schema. Each schema MUST be registered with the requirements and descriptions
defined in section 10.2.
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.
The newly defined Device Resource type as its own IANA registry will require
review in future allocations (these are described in section 10). Eliot Lear
would be the appropriate designated expert.