# Shepherd Writeup for ietf-wg-scitt/draft-ietf-scitt-scrapi
## Document History
### Was the document considered in any WG, and if so, why was it not adopted as
a work item there?
No, the document was created and only considered by the SCITT WG.
### Was there controversy about particular points that caused the WG to not
adopt the document?
No.
### 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.
### 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)?
I am aware of three implementations of the contents of the document, from
Datatrails [0], Tradeverifyed [1], and Microsoft [2], all Open Source.
[0] https://www.datatrails.ai
[1] https://tradeverifyd.com
[2] https://www.microsoft.com
## 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.
Yes, the document defines an HTTP API and would benefit from a review from the
HTTPDIR and SECDIR WG, which the chairs have requested in the datatracker.
### Describe how the document meets any required formal expert review criteria,
such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.
The document contains a request for a Well-Known URI Registry allocation that
requires formal expert review according to RFC8615.
### 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?
The document does not contain a 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.
The document contains HTTP requests, some of which include a CBOR EDN body.
They have been reviewed manually.
## 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 shepherd believes that the document is needed, clearly written, complete
and correctly designed. It is ready to be handed off to the responsible Area
Director.
### 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?
Security Considerations have been systematically filled in according to RFC3552
and bearing https://wiki.ietf.org/group/sec/typicalSECareaissues in mind.
No known common issues are believed to be unaddressed.
### 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?
The intended type is Proposed Standard, because the document describes a service
API for the purpose of interoperability, and uses BCP14 language.
Some implementations have moved past the experimental stage. The Datatracker does
reflect the correct RFC status.
### 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.
I have received confirmation by email from both authors that they have fulfilled
their IPR disclosure obligations.
### 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.
All authors and contributors have confirmed to me in email their willingness
to be listed as such. I have reached out to one person who has contributed
in the past, but have not heard back for a couple of weeks now. I will propose
that they are added if they reply.
### 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 remain.
### Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the IESG
Statement on Normative and Informative References.
No.
### 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 and have been available to the
community for over a year.
### 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.
There are no normative downward references in this document.
### 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?
No.
### 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 publication of this document will not change the status of any existing
RFCs.
### 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).
No new registries are created.
### The IANA considerations section is consistent with the body of the
document, and calls for minimal but necessary assignments. 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.
This document does not establish any new registries.