Skip to main content

Shepherd writeup
rfc8936-12

## What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard, Internet 
Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)?

Proposed standard. This is a normative WG document, and this is the proper type.

## The IESG approval announcement includes a Document  Announcement Write-Up.

### Technical Summary:

This document defines a poll-based HTTP transport for SETs (security events)
which are specified in RFC 8417. The document defines transport using HTTP POST
and TLS, as well as  optional assurance for such delivery.

### Working Group Summary

There is WG consensus for publishing this document, and no ocntroversy.

### Document Quality

Are  there existing implementations of the protocol? Have a significant  number
of vendors indicated their plan to implement the specification?  Are there any
reviewers that merit special mention as having done a  thorough review, e.g.,
one that resulted in important changes or a  conclusion that the document had
no substantive issues? If there was a  MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, Media Type or
other expert review, what was its course (briefly)? In the case of a Media Type
review, on what date was  the request posted?

Implementations: Microsoft has the protocol running in production. No
noteworthy reviews, and no special expertise required, beyond the working
group's core expertise.

## Personnel

Yaron Sheffer is the document shepherd. Ben Kaduk is the responsible AD.

## Briefly describe the review of this document that was performed by the
Document Shepherd.

I reviewed this document again and my comments were fully addressed by a new
revision. I believe the document is now ready for publication.

## Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of
the reviews that have been performed?

I do not have such concerns.

## Do portions of the document need review from a particular or from  broader
perspective?

No such reviews.

## 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?

The document is ready and the protocol addresses a real need expressed by WG
constituents. It should be noted that the WG consciously decided to publish two
alternative transports for SETs using HTTP Push and Poll, and this is one of
them.

## 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?

Yes.

## 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.

## How solid is the WG consensus behind this document?

Full consensus, though this is a relatively small community.

## Has anyone  threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent?

No.

## Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this document.

I have checked for I-D nits and no such nits remain, other than a reference to
an obsolete RFC (TLS 1.2, RFC 5246) which is appropriate in this context.

## Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria,  such
as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.

N/A.

## Have all references within this document been identified as either normative
or informative?

Yes.

## 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 a normative reference to a companion "push" document which is being
published concurrently.

## Are there downward normative references references (see RFC 3967)? If so, 
list these downward references to support the Area Director in the Last  Call
procedure.

As noted above, RFC 5246 (TLS 1.2).

## Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs?

No.

## Describe the Document Shepherd's review of the IANA considerations  section

The document requires no IANA actions. It does depend on an error code
registry, defined in the "push" document.

## List any new IANA registries that require Expert Review for future 
allocations.

N/A.

## Describe reviews and automated checks performed by the Document Shepherd to
validate sections of the document written in a formal language.

N/A.

## If the document contains a YANG module...

N/A.
Back