Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents
This version is dated 4 July 2022.
>Document History
>Does the working group (WG) consensus represent the strong concurrence of a
>few individuals, with others being silent, or did it reach broad agreement?
The document represents a strong concurrence of a many individuals, including
many from outside the IETF community who maintain running code.
>Was there controversy about particular points, or were there decisions where
>the consensus was particularly rough?
There were many small discussions, but not big ones and consensus was not rought.
>Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent?
No.
>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 recommends) or elsewhere
>(where)?
Yes there are a number of implementators involved, and many have implemented
the changes.
>Additional Reviews
>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.
The ITU-T and the ISO published documents similiar to RFC4122 at the time,
but they have not responded to this BIS process.
>Describe how the document meets any required formal expert review criteria,
>such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.
None.
>If the document contains a YANG module, has the final version of the module
No YANG module.
>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.
None required.
>Document Shepherd Checks
>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?
yes.
>Several IETF Areas have assembled lists of common issues that their
>reviewers encounter. For which areas have such issues been identified
>and addressed? For which does this still need to happen in subsequent
>reviews?
None relevant.
>What type of RFC publication is being requested on the IETF stream (Best
>Current Practice, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard,
Internet Standard.
This is an IETF revision of a Proposed Standard.
After the two year delay, it may be appropriate to mark it as Internet Standard.
>Have reasonable efforts been made to remind all authors of the intellectual
>property rights (IPR) disclosure obligations described in BCP 79? 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.
yes.
>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.
Yes, although one previous author was unresponsive, and was removed as an author.
>Document any remaining I-D nits in this document. Simply running the idnits
>tool is not enough; please review the "Content Guidelines" on
>authors.ietf.org. (Also note that the current idnits tool generates
>some incorrect warnings; a rewrite is underway.)
Three potential downrefs have been identified.
>Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the IESG
>Statement on Normative and Informative References.
Three references could be informative.
>List any normative references that are not freely available to anyone. Did
>the community have sufficient access to review any such normative
>references?
Although the IEC version of the document was not freely available, it was not used.
>Are there any normative downward references (see RFC 3967 and BCP
>97) that are not already listed in the DOWNREF registry? If so,
>list them.
None.
>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?
A>If so, what is the plan for their completion?
None.
>Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs?
Just obsolete RFC4122.
>Describe the document shepherd's review of the IANA considerations section,
>especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the document.
No IANA Considerations.