# Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents
*This version is dated 4 July 2022.*
## 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 was general agreement among a fairly small group of STIR participants.
This group included people with SIP and STIR implementation experience.
2. Was there controversy about particular points, or were there decisions where
the consensus was particularly rough?
There was no significant controversy. There were some architectural questions
and some questions about potential privacy leaks that that were worked
through to consensus. One participant questioned whether the mechanism
could be deployed in practice, but most active participants did not see a
problem.
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 one has threatened an appeal or expressed extreme discontent.
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)?
The shepherd is not aware of existing implementations. However, this work is
likely to be adopted by the ATIS/SIP Forum IP-NNI task force, which will
likely result in wide-spread implementation in the voice service provider
community.
## 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.
This work, like all work in STIR, is closely related to SIP, which is
maintained by SIPCORE. However, there is enough cross-participation between
the groups that a separate review in SIPCORE is probably not needed. There
is a companion draft to this work in SIP
[draft-ietf-sipcore-multiple-reasons].
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.
The only additional expert review required is for registration of a new
"Reason Protocol" in the IANA Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) Parameters
registry. The registration procedure is "Specification Required"
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]?
The document does not contain a YANG module.
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.
The draft does not use formal languages.
## 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?
In the shepherd's opinion, this document is ready to be handed off to the AD.
The shepherd found a small number of non-substantive nits that have been
shared with the author and do not need to block progress. They can wait
for the next update opportunity.
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?
The shepherd finds no such issues.
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
The intended status is Proposed Standard. It describes an extension for
error reporting for STIR, which is comprises multiple Proposed Standards.
This is correctly reflected in the datatracker.
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.
The author has explicitly confirmed that all IPR
disclosures required for full conformance with the provisions of
BCP 78 and BCP 79 have already been filed. There are none.
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.
This draft has a single author, whose willingness to be listed is implied
by the submission of the draft. But the author has explicitly confirmed,
anyway.
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 document shepherd review of the document did not find any
issues related to the Guidelines to Authors of Internet-Drafts.
15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the [IESG
Statement on Normative and Informative References][16].
All references are properly normative.
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 references are IETF RFCs or drafts
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.
There are no downward references.
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?
The only unpublished dependency is draft-ietf-sipcore-multiple-reasons,
which has already been submitted to the IESG.
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.
This draft does not affect the status of any existing RFC.
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]).
The shepherd has reviewed the IANA considerations and confirms all the
above.
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.
This draft does not create new registries.