Skip to main content

Shepherd writeup

As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document
Shepherd Write-Up. Changes are expected over time.

This version is dated 1 November 2019.

(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 intended to become an Informational RFC. It documents the
experiences and the practices followed of running the IETF hackathon at IETF
108 onwards after recovering from a cancelled hackathon at IETF 107 due to the
late move to a virtual meeting. Hence Informational seems to be the right
classification for this.

(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:

Technical Summary:

IETF Hackathons encourage the IETF community to collaborate on running code
related to existing and evolving Internet standards. This document provides a
set of practices that have been used for running IETF Hackathons. These
practices apply to Hackathons in which both in-person and remote participation
are possible with adaptations for Hackathons that are online only.

Working Group Summary:

The document was presented to shmoo early in the WG lifecycle where there was
discussion on whether an RFC was the right mechanism to capture these
experiences and practices and there was widespread agreement in the WG that it
was. There was a lot of feedback on the draft both prior to its adoption as WG
item as well as after. All issues brought up on the draft were tracked using an
issue tracker on github and the shepherd has confirmed that these have been
addressed in the latest version of the draft.

Document Quality:

The document has been presented several times to the working group and all the
feedback received has been addressed in the latest revision. The document has
received significant review from the WG before and after adoption and also
during working group last call.


Who is the Document Shepherd? Who is the Responsible Area Director?

Mallory Knodel is the Document Shepherd. Lars Eggert is the responsible AD.

(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.

Charles has clearly documented the tried and true formula for the IETF
Hackathon and it's a privilege to have this excellent work documented in the
shmoo working group. It is within scope of the shmoo charter for the critical
elements of remote participation in all meetings, including appropriate
considerations for those that are online only. My review was for consistency of
documentation only and to ensure there were no questions, gaps or confusing
information. Charles has addressed all issues both on the list and in Github,
and incorporated all PRs. With these minor changes, the document is certainly
ready to progress towards publication.

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

No. Both of the WG chairs have reviewed multiple versions of the draft and are
comfortable with the level of review this draft has received till date.

(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.


(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.


(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?


(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If so,
summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures.


(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?

There is solid WG consensus behind this document. A large number of WG
participants have expressed support for this draft and there has been no
opposition to it progressing.

(10) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent?
If so, please summarise 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.)


(11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this document.
(See and the Internet-Drafts Checklist).
Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be thorough.

There are no nits, warnings or errors identified by idnits.

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


(13) Have all references within this document been identified as either
normative or informative?

Yes. The document only has Informative references.

(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?


(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.


(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.


(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 8126).

There are no IANA actions required.

(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 IANA actions required.

(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, YANG modules, etc.


(20) If the document contains a YANG module, has 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