Shepherd writeup
rfc8447-05

As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document 
Shepherd Write-Up.

This version is dated 20180103

(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?

  PS is being requested.  This draft amends many TLS registries so that is the
appropriate type.

(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

This document is not very technical, it's about IANA registries:

   This document describes a number of changes to (D)TLS IANA registries that
range from adding notes to the registry all the way to changing the
registration policy.  These changes were motivated by WG review of the
(D)TLS-related registries undertaken as part of the TLS1.3 development process.
This document updates many (D)TLS RFCs 3749, 5077, 4680, 5246, 5705, 5878,
6520, and 7301.

Working Group Summary

 This draft has been discussed at multiple IETFs most recently at IETF100:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/100/materials/slides-100-tls-sessa-iana-registry-updates/
 
 There's not been a lot of review because most people consider this
administrivia that others should do; most just want the rules relaxed.  A
couple of notable reviews have been provided as noted below.

The most important change - to loosen registrations while at the same
time adding a "recommended" column to key registries requiring standards
action for a "yes" value, had clear WG consensus.

Various other WG documents depend on these changes being made and more will in
the near future.

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

  Responsible AD: Kathleen Moriarty Shepherd Extraordinaire: Stephen Farrell

  Martin Thomson, Eric Rescorla, and Benjamin Kaduk have at one time or anther
reviewed this draft.

(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.

The shepherd re-read the document and raised some nits that got fixed.

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

  No.

(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.

  This document is ripe. GENART might be interested, maybe.

(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 interested community has discussed those issues and has indicated
that it still wishes to advance the document, detail those concerns here.

  None.

(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.

 Yes - all relevant provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79 have been filed.

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

  No IPR has been disclosed.

(9) How solid is the consensus of the interested community behind this
document? Does it represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with
others being silent, or does the interested community as a whole understand and
agree with it?

 The WG definitely wants the registration rules relaxed in conjunction
with the use of the "recommended" column.

(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.)

  There has been no threat of appeal.

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

The nits check was on -03, the authors might fix some of these
before this write-up is updated:

- I think other nits described by the tool are erroneous. Cluttering
  the abstract with all those RFC numbers wouldn't help any real reader
  of this document, nor user of the IANA registries. (But if we insist
  on such clutter it'll cease being harmful once done;-)
- There's a downref to RFC 5878. I'd say best would be to move that
  to an informative reference as nobody cares about that encumbered
  and pretty useless RFC (no offence to the authors, it was well
  intended but a fail, as some are).

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

  N/A

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

  Yes the references are identified as either normative or informative.

(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?

  No.

(15) 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.

  No.

(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 interested community
considers it unnecessary.

  No other RFCs' status will change.

(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 5226).

 The entire draft is about IANA registries.

(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.

 The entire draft is about IANA registries.

(19) Describe reviews and automated checks performed by to validate sections of
the document written in a formal language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB
definitions, etc.

 N/A


Back