# Document Shepherd Writeup
This version is dated 30 April 2022.
Thank you for your service as a document shepherd. Among the responsibilities is
answering the questions in this writeup 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], and informally. You will need the cooperation of
authors 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 has been a good consensus to progress the document.
2. Was there controversy about particular points, or were there decisions where
the consensus was particularly rough?
No.
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)?
Section 8: Implementation Status records the status of known implementations of
the protocol defined by this draft.
### Additional Reviews
5. Does this document need review from other IETF working groups or external
organizations? Have those reviews occurred?
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.
There are no mib/yang/etc. requirements in this document.
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]?
There is no yang model here.
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.
### 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?
The shepherd has read through the several versions and the document is in a
good shape to progress further.
10. Several IETF Areas have assembled [lists of common issues that their
reviewers encounter][6]. Do any such issues remain that would merit specific
attention from subsequent reviews?
None.
11. 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?
Proposed Standard.
12. Has the interested community confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR
disclosures required by [BCP 78][7] and [BCP 79][8] have been filed? If not,
explain why. If yes, summarize any discussion and conclusion regarding the
intellectual property rights (IPR) disclosures, including links to relevant
emails.
Yes. Following IPR disclosures have been done so far:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/sidrops/B9JCmW_WKtCHa4ydsOBRPizwHwU/https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/sidrops/N0G4bRSnp03F9qjyiq9bi8ftdHg/https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/sidrops/2448nMklLgl6aQpX4eaRG2VsQIQ/
13. Has each Author or Contributor confirmed their willingness to be listed as
such? If the number of Authors/Editors on the front page is greater than 5,
please provide a justification.
There are only 3 Authors listed on the document. All of them have confirmed
their willingness to be listed as Authors.
14. Identify any remaining I-D nits in this document. (See [the idnits tool][9]
and the checkbox items found in Guidelines to Authors of Internet-Drafts).
Simply running the idnits tool is not enough; please review the entire
guidelines document.
There are minor nits that needs to be cleaned up.
Checking boilerplate required by RFC 5378 and the IETF Trust (see
https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info):
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
No issues found here.
Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/1id-guidelines.txt:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
No issues found here.
Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist :
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
** There are 3 instances of too long lines in the document, the longest one
being 18 characters in excess of 72.
Miscellaneous warnings:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
-- The document date (26 May 2022) is 62 days in the past. Is this
intentional?
Checking references for intended status: Proposed Standard
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
(See RFCs 3967 and 4897 for information about using normative references
to lower-maturity documents in RFCs)
== Missing Reference: 'RFC6268' is mentioned on line 178, but not defined
-- Looks like a reference, but probably isn't: '0' on line 222
-- Looks like a reference, but probably isn't: '1' on line 210
== Missing Reference: 'RFC-TBD' is mentioned on line 582, but not defined
-- Possible downref: Non-RFC (?) normative reference: ref.
'ADDRESS-FAMILY-NUMBERS'
** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 6486 (Obsoleted by RFC 9286)
Summary: 2 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 2 warnings (==), 4 comments (--).
Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about
the items above.
15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa?
No.
16. List any normative references that are not freely available to anyone. Did
the community have sufficient access to review any such normative
references?
None.
17. Are there any normative downward references (see [RFC 3967][10],
[BCP 97][11])? If so, list them.
No.
18. Are there normative references to documents that are not ready for
advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state? If they exist, what is the
plan for their completion?
Two references were found:
[I-D.ietf-sidrops-rpki-rta]
Michaelson, G., Huston, G., Harrison, T., Bruijnzeels, T.,
and M. Hoffmann, "A profile for Resource Tagged
Attestations (RTAs)", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft,
draft-ietf-sidrops-rpki-rta-00, 21 January 2021,
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-sidrops-
rpki-rta-00>.
[I-D.ymbk-sidrops-rpki-has-no-identity]
Bush, R. and R. Housley, "The I in RPKI does not stand for
Identity", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ymbk-
sidrops-rpki-has-no-identity-00, 16 March 2021,
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ymbk-sidrops-
rpki-has-no-identity-00>.
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.
None.
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][12]).
All the references to IANA registries have been clearly identified. The draft
refers to following registries: SMI Security for S/MIME CMS Content Type
registry, RPKI Signed Objects sub-registry, RPKI Repository Name Scheme
registry, SMI Security for S/MIME registry, and Provisional Standard Media Type
registry.
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.
[1]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/
[2]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4858.html
[3]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7942.html
[4]: https://trac.ietf.org/trac/ops/wiki/yang-review-tools
[5]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8342.html
[6]: https://trac.ietf.org/trac/iesg/wiki/ExpertTopics
[7]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp78
[8]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp79
[9]: https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/
[10]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3967.html
[11]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp97
[12]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8126.html
None.