Skip to main content

Implementing Interfaces to Transport Services
draft-ietf-taps-impl-18

Revision differences

Document history

Date Rev. By Action
2023-12-14
18 Anna Brunstrom New version available: draft-ietf-taps-impl-18.txt
2023-12-14
18 Tommy Pauly New version approved
2023-12-14
18 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Anna Brunstrom , Michael Welzl , Philipp Tiesel , Reese Enghardt , Tommy Pauly
2023-12-14
18 Anna Brunstrom Uploaded new revision
2023-11-09
17 Anna Brunstrom New version available: draft-ietf-taps-impl-17.txt
2023-11-09
17 Tommy Pauly New version approved
2023-11-09
17 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Anna Brunstrom , Michael Welzl , Philipp Tiesel , Reese Enghardt , Tommy Pauly
2023-11-09
17 Anna Brunstrom Uploaded new revision
2023-09-07
16 (System) Removed all action holders (IESG state changed)
2023-09-07
16 Cindy Morgan IESG state changed to Approved-announcement to be sent::AD Followup from IESG Evaluation
2023-09-07
16 Éric Vyncke
[Ballot comment]
Due to $dayjob work, I had no time to make a detailed review of yet another *neat* document.

Please address Benson Muite's comments …
[Ballot comment]
Due to $dayjob work, I had no time to make a detailed review of yet another *neat* document.

Please address Benson Muite's comments in his int-dir review: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/review-ietf-taps-impl-16-intdir-telechat-muite-2023-09-05/

Thanks for having address Peter van Dijk's comments in his dns-dir review: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/review-ietf-taps-impl-16-dnsdir-telechat-van-dijk-2023-09-04/

In section 4, suggest to follow RFC 5952 to represent IPv6 address and use the usual 'browser' syntax for ports for IPv6: [2001:db8::1]:80. And in the same shot, why using 80 rather than 443 ? :-)

In section 4.1.1.1, while I like using real-world examples, the usual way in IETF drafts is to use example.net or similar.

I can only regret that most of the examples are using IPv4 over LTE while most mobile providers are IPv6-only nowadays...

-éric
2023-09-07
16 Éric Vyncke [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Éric Vyncke
2023-09-07
16 Robert Wilton
[Ballot comment]
Hi,

Thanks for this document and this work.  Sorry, I have not had time to review this in detail, but did have a …
[Ballot comment]
Hi,

Thanks for this document and this work.  Sorry, I have not had time to review this in detail, but did have a couple of minor comments/questions:

Minor level comments:                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           
(1) p 2, sec                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           
  10. Specific Transport Protocol Considerations  . . . . . . . . .  37                                                                                                                                                                                   
    10.1.  TCP  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  38                                                                                                                                                                                   
    10.2.  MPTCP  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  40                                                                                                                                                                                   
    10.3.  UDP  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  40                                                                                                                                                                                   
    10.4.  UDP-Lite . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  42                                                                                                                                                                                   
    10.5.  UDP Multicast Receive  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  42                                                                                                                                                                                   
    10.6.  SCTP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  44                                                                                                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           
I was surprised not to see QUIC included in this list of specific transport considerations.  Are there no specific considerations for QUIC, or is it out of scope?


(2) p 25, sec 5.1.3.  Batching Sends

  Since sending a Message may involve a context switch between the
  application and the Transport Services system, sending patterns that
  involve multiple small Messages can incur high overhead if each needs
  to be enqueued separately.  To avoid this, the application can
  indicate a batch of Send actions through the API.  When this is used,
  the implementation can defer the processing of Messages until the
  batch is complete.

Since the API is asynchronous I would have thought that would have avoided the high overheads associated with synchronous blocking IPC, since calling the send() action shouldn't cause the sender to yield their time slice.  Or is the concern here a context switch between kernel space and user space?  Or a shared lock?  Are there implementations of this new API with associated performance data and benchmarks against the legacy sockets API?
2023-09-07
16 Robert Wilton [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Robert Wilton
2023-09-07
16 Andrew Alston [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Andrew Alston
2023-09-07
16 Francesca Palombini
[Ballot comment]
Thank you for the work on this document.

Many thanks to Bron Gondwana for his ART ART early review: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/art/BCssDo0BzxJbmsBrn9pPcG8RLPg/ and to the …
[Ballot comment]
Thank you for the work on this document.

Many thanks to Bron Gondwana for his ART ART early review: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/art/BCssDo0BzxJbmsBrn9pPcG8RLPg/ and to the authors for addressing Bron's comments.
2023-09-07
16 Francesca Palombini [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Francesca Palombini
2023-09-07
16 Jim Guichard [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Jim Guichard
2023-09-06
16 Murray Kucherawy [Ballot comment]
Thanks to Bron Gondwana for the ARTART review.
2023-09-06
16 Murray Kucherawy [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Murray Kucherawy
2023-09-06
16 Erik Kline
[Ballot comment]
# Internet AD comments for draft-ietf-taps-impl-16
CC @ekline

* comment syntax:
  - https://github.com/mnot/ietf-comments/blob/main/format.md

* "Handling Ballot Positions":
  - https://ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-ballot-positions/

## Nits …
[Ballot comment]
# Internet AD comments for draft-ietf-taps-impl-16
CC @ekline

* comment syntax:
  - https://github.com/mnot/ietf-comments/blob/main/format.md

* "Handling Ballot Positions":
  - https://ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-ballot-positions/

## Nits

###

* s/2001:DB8::/2001:db8::/g

  RFC 5952 section 4.3.
2023-09-06
16 Erik Kline [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Erik Kline
2023-09-06
16 Martin Duke
[Ballot comment]
One nit: (S10.3) consistently appends (-Lite) to every reference to UDP, and then (S10.4) is explicitly about UDP-Lite. An equivalent editorial decision would …
[Ballot comment]
One nit: (S10.3) consistently appends (-Lite) to every reference to UDP, and then (S10.4) is explicitly about UDP-Lite. An equivalent editorial decision would to make every reference to TCP instead read "(MP)TCP."

I would recommend that you simply delete all instances of "(-Lite)".
2023-09-06
16 Martin Duke [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Martin Duke
2023-09-06
16 John Scudder [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for John Scudder
2023-09-05
16 Benson Muite Request for Telechat review by INTDIR Partially Completed: Ready with Issues. Reviewer: Benson Muite. Sent review to list.
2023-09-05
16 Roman Danyliw [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Roman Danyliw
2023-09-04
16 Peter van Dijk Request for Telechat review by DNSDIR Completed: Ready. Reviewer: Peter van Dijk. Sent review to list.
2023-08-31
16 Juan-Carlos Zúñiga Request for Telechat review by INTDIR is assigned to Benson Muite
2023-08-30
16 Amanda Baber IANA Review state changed to IANA OK - No Actions Needed from Version Changed - Review Needed
2023-08-17
16 Jim Reid Request for Telechat review by DNSDIR is assigned to Peter van Dijk
2023-08-16
16 Amy Vezza Placed on agenda for telechat - 2023-09-07
2023-08-16
16 Zaheduzzaman Sarker Ballot has been issued
2023-08-16
16 Zaheduzzaman Sarker [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Zaheduzzaman Sarker
2023-08-16
16 Zaheduzzaman Sarker Created "Approve" ballot
2023-08-16
16 Zaheduzzaman Sarker IESG state changed to IESG Evaluation from Waiting for AD Go-Ahead::AD Followup
2023-08-16
16 Zaheduzzaman Sarker Ballot writeup was changed
2023-06-05
16 (System) Changed action holders to Zaheduzzaman Sarker (IESG state changed)
2023-06-05
16 (System) Sub state has been changed to AD Followup from Revised I-D Needed
2023-06-05
16 (System) IANA Review state changed to Version Changed - Review Needed from IANA OK - No Actions Needed
2023-06-05
16 Anna Brunstrom New version available: draft-ietf-taps-impl-16.txt
2023-06-05
16 Tommy Pauly New version approved
2023-06-05
16 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Anna Brunstrom , Michael Welzl , Philipp Tiesel , Reese Enghardt , Tommy Pauly
2023-06-05
16 Anna Brunstrom Uploaded new revision
2023-04-26
15 Zaheduzzaman Sarker Revised I-D needed to address the comments and feedback received in the IETF last call.
2023-04-26
15 (System) Changed action holders to Anna Brunstrom, Tommy Pauly, Reese Enghardt, Philipp Tiesel, Michael Welzl, Zaheduzzaman Sarker (IESG state changed)
2023-04-26
15 Zaheduzzaman Sarker IESG state changed to Waiting for AD Go-Ahead::Revised I-D Needed from Waiting for AD Go-Ahead
2023-04-20
15 Linda Dunbar Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR Completed: Has Nits. Reviewer: Linda Dunbar. Sent review to list.
2023-04-14
15 (System) IESG state changed to Waiting for AD Go-Ahead from In Last Call
2023-04-13
15 Dale Worley
Request for Last Call review by GENART Completed: Ready with Issues. Reviewer: Dale Worley. Sent review to list. Submission of review completed at an earlier …
Request for Last Call review by GENART Completed: Ready with Issues. Reviewer: Dale Worley. Sent review to list. Submission of review completed at an earlier date.
2023-04-13
15 Dale Worley Request for Last Call review by GENART Completed: Ready with Issues. Reviewer: Dale Worley.
2023-04-12
15 (System) IANA Review state changed to IANA OK - No Actions Needed from IANA - Review Needed
2023-04-12
15 David Dong
(Via drafts-lastcall@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

The IANA Functions Operator has reviewed draft-ietf-taps-impl-15, which is currently in Last Call, and has the following comments:

We …
(Via drafts-lastcall@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

The IANA Functions Operator has reviewed draft-ietf-taps-impl-15, which is currently in Last Call, and has the following comments:

We understand that this document doesn't require any registry actions.

While it's often helpful for a document's IANA Considerations section to remain in place upon publication even if there are no actions, if the authors strongly prefer to remove it, we do not object.

If this assessment is not accurate, please respond as soon as possible.

For definitions of IANA review states, please see:

https://datatracker.ietf.org/help/state/draft/iana-review

Thank you,

David Dong
IANA Services Specialist
2023-04-12
15 Gunter Van de Velde Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR is assigned to Linda Dunbar
2023-04-11
15 Peter van Dijk Request for Last Call review by DNSDIR Completed: Ready with Nits. Reviewer: Peter van Dijk. Sent review to list.
2023-04-06
15 Tero Kivinen Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Mike Jones
2023-04-06
15 Jean Mahoney Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Dale Worley
2023-03-30
15 Jim Reid Request for Last Call review by DNSDIR is assigned to Peter van Dijk
2023-03-30
15 Cindy Morgan IANA Review state changed to IANA - Review Needed
2023-03-30
15 Cindy Morgan
The following Last Call announcement was sent out (ends 2023-04-14):

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC: Zaheduzzaman.Sarker@ericsson.com, draft-ietf-taps-impl@ietf.org, ietf@trammell.ch, taps-chairs@ietf.org, taps@ietf.org …
The following Last Call announcement was sent out (ends 2023-04-14):

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC: Zaheduzzaman.Sarker@ericsson.com, draft-ietf-taps-impl@ietf.org, ietf@trammell.ch, taps-chairs@ietf.org, taps@ietf.org
Reply-To: last-call@ietf.org
Sender:
Subject: Last Call:  (Implementing Interfaces to Transport Services) to Informational RFC


The IESG has received a request from the Transport Services WG (taps) to
consider the following document: - 'Implementing Interfaces to Transport
Services'
  as Informational RFC

The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits final
comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the
last-call@ietf.org mailing lists by 2023-04-14. Exceptionally, comments may
be sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the beginning
of the Subject line to allow automated sorting.

Abstract


  The Transport Services system enables applications to use transport
  protocols flexibly for network communication and defines a protocol-
  independent Transport Services Application Programming Interface
  (API) that is based on an asynchronous, event-driven interaction
  pattern.  This document serves as a guide to implementation on how to
  build such a system.




The file can be obtained via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-taps-impl/



No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D.




2023-03-30
15 Cindy Morgan IESG state changed to In Last Call from Last Call Requested
2023-03-30
15 Cindy Morgan Last call announcement was changed
2023-03-30
15 Zaheduzzaman Sarker Last call was requested
2023-03-30
15 Zaheduzzaman Sarker Ballot approval text was generated
2023-03-30
15 Zaheduzzaman Sarker Ballot writeup was generated
2023-03-30
15 Zaheduzzaman Sarker IESG state changed to Last Call Requested from AD Evaluation::AD Followup
2023-03-30
15 Zaheduzzaman Sarker Last call announcement was generated
2023-03-09
15 (System) Changed action holders to Zaheduzzaman Sarker (IESG state changed)
2023-03-09
15 (System) Sub state has been changed to AD Followup from Revised I-D Needed
2023-03-09
15 Anna Brunstrom New version available: draft-ietf-taps-impl-15.txt
2023-03-09
15 Tommy Pauly New version approved
2023-03-09
15 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Anna Brunstrom , Michael Welzl , Philipp Tiesel , Reese Enghardt , Tommy Pauly
2023-03-09
15 Anna Brunstrom Uploaded new revision
2023-02-03
14 (System) Changed action holders to Michael Welzl, Zaheduzzaman Sarker, Anna Brunstrom, Tommy Pauly, Philipp Tiesel, Reese Enghardt (IESG state changed)
2023-02-03
14 Zaheduzzaman Sarker IESG state changed to AD Evaluation::Revised I-D Needed from Publication Requested
2023-01-12
14 Zaheduzzaman Sarker IESG state changed to Publication Requested from AD Evaluation
2022-12-21
14 (System) Changed action holders to Zaheduzzaman Sarker (IESG state changed)
2022-12-21
14 Zaheduzzaman Sarker IESG state changed to AD Evaluation from Publication Requested
2022-12-21
14 Zaheduzzaman Sarker Changed consensus to Yes from Unknown
2022-12-19
14 Reese Enghardt
# Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents

*This version is dated 4 July 2022.*

Thank you for your service as a document shepherd. Among the …
# Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents

*This version is dated 4 July 2022.*

Thank you for your service as a document shepherd. Among the responsibilities is
answering the questions in this write-up 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]. You will need the cooperation of the authors
and editors 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?

This document reached broad agreement, with contributions from most active WG members.

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)?

This document gives implementation guidelines for the Transport Services
reference architecture and API describe in the -arch and -interface drafts; it
reflects experience gained in one widely deployed production implementation
and two open implementations deployed for research purposes, as listed in
Appendix C.

## 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.

The implementation draft has benefited from broad TSV area review within the WG
itself, and has had artart early review.

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.

No formal review necessary.

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]?

No 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.

No formal notation, so no automated checks.

## 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?

Yes.

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 artart early review was relatively thorough; secdir comments apply more to the
companion drafts, as do comments recieved for many of the int area topics (esp. v6).

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?

Informational is appropriate for experience-driven implementation guidelines.

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.

To the best of my knowledge, all appropriate IPR claims (i.e., none) have been filed.

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.

Yes; there are five listed authors.

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.)

Overlong lines in sections 6.2 and 6.3 may need an editorial fix. Reference issues will be fixed by a document rebuild.

15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the [IESG
    Statement on Normative and Informative References][16].

Verified.

16. List any normative references that are not freely available to anyone. Did
    the community have sufficient access to review any such normative
    references?

No non-IETF normative references.

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.

No.

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?

No: the companion drafts will be submitted and published together.

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.

No.

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]).

This document has no actions for IANA, which is appropriate.

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.

No new IANA registries

[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/bcp79
[8]: https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/
[9]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3967.html
[10]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp97
[11]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8126.html
[12]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-5
[13]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.1
[14]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.2
[15]: https://authors.ietf.org/en/content-guidelines-overview
[16]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/normative-informative-references/
[17]: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/downref/

2022-12-19
14 Reese Enghardt Responsible AD changed to Zaheduzzaman Sarker
2022-12-19
14 Reese Enghardt IETF WG state changed to Submitted to IESG for Publication from WG Consensus: Waiting for Write-Up
2022-12-19
14 Reese Enghardt IESG state changed to Publication Requested from I-D Exists
2022-12-19
14 Reese Enghardt Document is now in IESG state Publication Requested
2022-12-19
14 Reese Enghardt IETF WG state changed to WG Consensus: Waiting for Write-Up from Waiting for WG Chair Go-Ahead
2022-10-20
14 Anna Brunstrom New version available: draft-ietf-taps-impl-14.txt
2022-10-20
14 Tommy Pauly New version approved
2022-10-20
14 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Anna Brunstrom , Michael Welzl , Philipp Tiesel , Reese Enghardt , Tommy Pauly
2022-10-20
14 Anna Brunstrom Uploaded new revision
2022-10-06
13 Brian Trammell
# Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents

*This version is dated 4 July 2022.*

Thank you for your service as a document shepherd. Among the …
# Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents

*This version is dated 4 July 2022.*

Thank you for your service as a document shepherd. Among the responsibilities is
answering the questions in this write-up 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]. You will need the cooperation of the authors
and editors 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?

This document reached broad agreement, with contributions from most active WG members.

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)?

This document gives implementation guidelines for the Transport Services
reference architecture and API describe in the -arch and -interface drafts; it
reflects experience gained in one widely deployed production implementation
and two open implementations deployed for research purposes, as listed in
Appendix C.

## 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.

The implementation draft has benefited from broad TSV area review within the WG
itself, and has had artart early review.

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.

No formal review necessary.

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]?

No 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.

No formal notation, so no automated checks.

## 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?

Yes.

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 artart early review was relatively thorough; secdir comments apply more to the
companion drafts, as do comments recieved for many of the int area topics (esp. v6).

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?

Informational is appropriate for experience-driven implementation guidelines.

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.

To the best of my knowledge, all appropriate IPR claims (i.e., none) have been filed.

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.

Yes; there are five listed authors.

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.)

Overlong lines in sections 6.2 and 6.3 may need an editorial fix. Reference issues will be fixed by a document rebuild.

15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the [IESG
    Statement on Normative and Informative References][16].

Verified.

16. List any normative references that are not freely available to anyone. Did
    the community have sufficient access to review any such normative
    references?

No non-IETF normative references.

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.

No.

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?

No: the companion drafts will be submitted and published together.

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.

No.

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]).

This document has no actions for IANA, which is appropriate.

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.

No new IANA registries

[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/bcp79
[8]: https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/
[9]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3967.html
[10]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp97
[11]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8126.html
[12]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-5
[13]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.1
[14]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.2
[15]: https://authors.ietf.org/en/content-guidelines-overview
[16]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/normative-informative-references/
[17]: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/downref/

2022-09-27
13 Brian Trammell
# Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents

*This version is dated 4 July 2022.*

Thank you for your service as a document shepherd. Among the …
# Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents

*This version is dated 4 July 2022.*

Thank you for your service as a document shepherd. Among the responsibilities is
answering the questions in this write-up 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]. You will need the cooperation of the authors
and editors to complete these checks.

Note that some numbered items contain multiple related questions; please be sure
to answer all of them.

***Shepherd's note: draft version, do not submit to the IESG yet.***

## 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?

This document reached broad agreement, with contributions from most active WG members.

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)?

This document gives implementation guidelines for the Transport Services
reference architecture and API describe in the -arch and -interface drafts; it
reflects experience gained in one widely deployed production implementation
and two open implementations deployed for research purposes, as listed in
Appendix C.

## 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.

The implementation draft has benefited from broad TSV area review within the WG
itself, and has had artart early review.

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.

No formal review necessary.

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]?

No 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.

No formal notation, so no automated checks.

## 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?

Yes.

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 artart early review was relatively thorough; secdir comments apply more to the
companion drafts, as do comments recieved for many of the int area topics (esp. v6).

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?

Informational is appropriate for experience-driven implementation guidelines.

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.

To the best of my knowledge, all appropriate IPR claims (i.e., none) have been filed.

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.

Yes; there are five listed authors.

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.)

**Shepherd's Note: Overlong lines in sections 6.2 and 6.3 need a fix. Reference issues will be fixed by a document rebuild.***

15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the [IESG
    Statement on Normative and Informative References][16].

Verified.

16. List any normative references that are not freely available to anyone. Did
    the community have sufficient access to review any such normative
    references?

No non-IETF normative references.

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.

No.

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?

No: the companion drafts will be submitted and published together.

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.

No.

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]).

This document has no actions for IANA, which is appropriate.

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.

No new IANA registries

[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/bcp79
[8]: https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/
[9]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3967.html
[10]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp97
[11]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8126.html
[12]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-5
[13]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.1
[14]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.2
[15]: https://authors.ietf.org/en/content-guidelines-overview
[16]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/normative-informative-references/
[17]: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/downref/

2022-09-26
13 Aaron Falk Notification list changed to ietf@trammell.ch because the document shepherd was set
2022-09-26
13 Aaron Falk Document shepherd changed to Brian Trammell
2022-08-31
13 Anna Brunstrom New version available: draft-ietf-taps-impl-13.txt
2022-08-31
13 Tommy Pauly New version approved
2022-08-31
13 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Anna Brunstrom , Michael Welzl , Philipp Tiesel , Reese Enghardt , Tommy Pauly
2022-08-31
13 Anna Brunstrom Uploaded new revision
2022-07-13
12 Reese Enghardt
Holding this doc until the arch, interface, and impl docs have had all outstanding comments addressed and been aligned with each other.
We will send …
Holding this doc until the arch, interface, and impl docs have had all outstanding comments addressed and been aligned with each other.
We will send the three docs to IESG as a set.
2022-07-13
12 Reese Enghardt IETF WG state changed to Waiting for WG Chair Go-Ahead from In WG Last Call
2022-05-30
12 Bron Gondwana Request for Early review by ARTART Completed: Ready with Nits. Reviewer: Bron Gondwana. Sent review to list.
2022-04-04
12 Reese Enghardt IETF WG state changed to In WG Last Call from WG Document
2022-04-04
12 Barry Leiba Request for Early review by ARTART is assigned to Bron Gondwana
2022-04-04
12 Barry Leiba Request for Early review by ARTART is assigned to Bron Gondwana
2022-04-04
12 Reese Enghardt Requested Early review by ARTART
2022-03-22
12 Reese Enghardt Added to session: IETF-113: taps  Wed-1300
2022-03-07
12 Tommy Pauly New version available: draft-ietf-taps-impl-12.txt
2022-03-07
12 (System) New version approved
2022-03-07
12 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Anna Brunstrom , Michael Welzl , Philipp Tiesel , Theresa Enghardt , Tommy Pauly
2022-03-07
12 Tommy Pauly Uploaded new revision
2022-01-09
11 Tommy Pauly New version available: draft-ietf-taps-impl-11.txt
2022-01-09
11 (System) New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Tommy Pauly)
2022-01-09
11 Tommy Pauly Uploaded new revision
2021-07-28
10 Reese Enghardt Changed document external resources from: None to:

github_repo https://github.com/ietf-tapswg/api-drafts
2021-07-22
10 Reese Enghardt Added to session: IETF-111: taps  Tue-1430
2021-07-12
10 Tommy Pauly New version available: draft-ietf-taps-impl-10.txt
2021-07-12
10 (System) Posted submission manually
2021-04-30
09 Tommy Pauly New version available: draft-ietf-taps-impl-09.txt
2021-04-30
09 (System) Posted submission manually
2020-11-02
08 Tommy Pauly New version available: draft-ietf-taps-impl-08.txt
2020-11-02
08 (System) New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Tommy Pauly)
2020-11-02
08 Tommy Pauly Uploaded new revision
2020-07-13
07 Tommy Pauly New version available: draft-ietf-taps-impl-07.txt
2020-07-13
07 (System) Posted submission manually
2020-03-09
06 Tommy Pauly New version available: draft-ietf-taps-impl-06.txt
2020-03-09
06 (System) Posted submission manually
2019-11-04
05 Tommy Pauly New version available: draft-ietf-taps-impl-05.txt
2019-11-04
05 (System) New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Tommy Pauly)
2019-11-04
05 Tommy Pauly Uploaded new revision
2019-11-04
05 (System)
Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Michael Welzl , Theresa Enghardt , Philipp Tiesel , Tommy Pauly , Colin Perkins , Karl-Johan Grinnemo …
Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Michael Welzl , Theresa Enghardt , Philipp Tiesel , Tommy Pauly , Colin Perkins , Karl-Johan Grinnemo , Tom Jones , Anna Brunstrom
2019-11-04
05 Tommy Pauly Uploaded new revision
2019-11-04
05 Tommy Pauly Uploaded new revision
2019-07-12
04 Aaron Falk Added to session: IETF-105: taps  Mon-1330
2019-07-08
04 Tommy Pauly New version available: draft-ietf-taps-impl-04.txt
2019-07-08
04 (System) New version approved
2019-07-08
04 (System)
Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Michael Welzl , Theresa Enghardt , taps-chairs@ietf.org, Tommy Pauly , Colin Perkins , Karl-Johan Grinnemo , …
Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Michael Welzl , Theresa Enghardt , taps-chairs@ietf.org, Tommy Pauly , Colin Perkins , Karl-Johan Grinnemo , Tom Jones , Philipp Tiesel , Anna Brunstrom
2019-07-08
04 Tommy Pauly Uploaded new revision
2019-03-20
03 Aaron Falk Added to session: IETF-104: taps  Fri-1050
2019-03-11
03 Tommy Pauly New version available: draft-ietf-taps-impl-03.txt
2019-03-11
03 (System) New version approved
2019-03-11
03 (System)
Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Michael Welzl , Theresa Enghardt , Tommy Pauly , Colin Perkins , Karl-Johan Grinnemo , Tom Jones …
Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Michael Welzl , Theresa Enghardt , Tommy Pauly , Colin Perkins , Karl-Johan Grinnemo , Tom Jones , Philipp Tiesel , Anna Brunstrom
2019-03-11
03 Tommy Pauly Uploaded new revision
2018-10-22
02 Aaron Falk Added to session: IETF-103: taps  Wed-1540
2018-10-22
02 Tommy Pauly New version available: draft-ietf-taps-impl-02.txt
2018-10-22
02 (System) New version approved
2018-10-22
02 (System)
Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Michael Welzl , Theresa Enghardt , Tommy Pauly , Colin Perkins , Karl-Johan Grinnemo , Tom Jones …
Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Michael Welzl , Theresa Enghardt , Tommy Pauly , Colin Perkins , Karl-Johan Grinnemo , Tom Jones , Philipp Tiesel , Anna Brunstrom
2018-10-22
02 Tommy Pauly Uploaded new revision
2018-07-17
01 Aaron Falk
Discussed and hummed on at IETF-102 meeting in Montreal.  May need to revisit whether this is Informational if the protocol mapping should be normative.  Might …
Discussed and hummed on at IETF-102 meeting in Montreal.  May need to revisit whether this is Informational if the protocol mapping should be normative.  Might move it to another doc.  Might change this to standards track.
2018-07-17
01 Aaron Falk Intended Status changed to Informational from None
2018-07-12
01 Aaron Falk Added to session: IETF-102: taps  Tue-1550
2018-07-01
01 Tommy Pauly New version available: draft-ietf-taps-impl-01.txt
2018-07-01
01 (System) New version approved
2018-07-01
01 (System)
Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Michael Welzl , Theresa Enghardt , Tommy Pauly , Colin Perkins , Karl-Johan Grinnemo , Tom Jones …
Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Michael Welzl , Theresa Enghardt , Tommy Pauly , Colin Perkins , Karl-Johan Grinnemo , Tom Jones , Philipp Tiesel , Anna Brunstrom
2018-07-01
01 Tommy Pauly Uploaded new revision
2018-05-25
00 Tom Jones New version available: draft-ietf-taps-impl-00.txt
2018-05-25
00 (System) WG -00 approved
2018-05-25
00 Tom Jones Set submitter to "Tom Jones ", replaces to (none) and sent approval email to group chairs: taps-chairs@ietf.org
2018-05-25
00 Tom Jones Uploaded new revision