ea22b0fd3b
* fix: Update the document shepherd template Along the lines of https://github.com/ietf-chairs/chairs.ietf.org/pull/5 * Rewrap manually * Use relative Markdown links to improve readability
133 lines
6.7 KiB
Plaintext
133 lines
6.7 KiB
Plaintext
{# Keep in sync with https://github.com/ietf-chairs/chairs.ietf.org/blob/main/documents/qa-style-writeup-template.md #}{% if doc.stream %}{% if doc.stream.slug == 'ietf' %}# Document Shepherd Writeup
|
|
|
|
*This version is dated 8 April 2023.*
|
|
|
|
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
|
|
{% if doc.group.type.slug == 'individ' %}
|
|
1. Was the document considered in any WG, and if so, why was it not adopted as a
|
|
work item there?
|
|
|
|
2. Was there controversy about particular points that caused the WG to not adopt
|
|
the document?
|
|
{% else %}
|
|
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?
|
|
|
|
2. Was there controversy about particular points, or were there decisions where
|
|
the consensus was particularly rough?
|
|
{% endif %}
|
|
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.)
|
|
|
|
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)?
|
|
|
|
### Additional Reviews
|
|
|
|
5. Does this document need review from other IETF working groups or external
|
|
organizations? Have those reviews occurred?
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
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]?
|
|
|
|
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?
|
|
|
|
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?
|
|
|
|
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?
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa?
|
|
|
|
16. List any normative references that are not freely available to anyone. Did
|
|
the community have sufficient access to review any such normative
|
|
references?
|
|
|
|
17. Are there any normative downward references (see [RFC 3967][10],
|
|
[BCP 97][11])? If so, list them.
|
|
|
|
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?
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
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]).
|
|
|
|
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
|
|
{% else %}There is no default shepherd writeup template for the {{doc.stream}} stream.
|
|
{% endif %}{% else %}There is no stream set for this document (thus, no default shepherd writeup template).{% endif %} |