Shepherd writeup

(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?

  The document specifies a new protocol and as such is being submitted
  as a Proposed Standard on the Standards Track, as indicated in the
  title page header.

(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:

  The Application-Layer Traffic Optimization (ALTO) Service provides
  network information (e.g., basic network location structure,
  preferences of network paths) with the goal of modifying network
  resource consumption patterns while maintaining or improving
  application performance.  The basic information of ALTO is based on
  abstract maps of a network.  These maps provide a simplified view,
  yet enough information about a network for applications to
  effectively utilize them.  Additional services are built on top the

  This document describes a protocol implementing the ALTO Service.
  Although the ALTO service would primarily be provided by the network
  operator (e.g., an ISP), content providers and third parties could
  also operate this service.  Applications that could use this service
  are those that have a choice in connection endpoints.  Examples of
  such applications are peer-to-peer (P2P) and content delivery

Relevant content can frequently be found in the abstract and/or
introduction of the document. If not, this may be an indication that
there are deficiencies in the abstract or introduction.

Working Group Summary:

Was there anything in WG process that is worth noting? For example,
was there controversy about particular points or were there decisions
where the consensus was particularly rough?

  The specification process has been particularly long and
  articulated. The WG had to make many decisions -- the architectural
  ones reflected in the related requirements document -- that took
  time. However, quite broad consensus was reached on almost all of

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?

  Implementations: three implementations with some interoperability
  were demostrated during a "running code show" organized at
  IETF80. Seven client and five server implementations were tested in
  an "interoperability event" at IETF81, with pretty good results
  ( A
  second interoperability event was arranged during IETF85, were four
  server and two client implementations were tested against 21 test
  cases, with again good success rates (last slide of

  Expert supervision: since the protocol, despite being developed in
  TSV, is an application level protocol, based on HTTP and following a
  REST-ful approach, Peter Saint-Andre (also former responsible AD for
  ALTO, before the WG was moved to TSV) was appointed as APPS expert
  and has supervised the specification process in its crucial phases
  (Peter stepped back as Tech advisor at a later phase). Other experts
  from APPS (Martin Thomson, Alexey Melnikov), SEC (Richard Barnes,
  Hannes Tshofenig) and OPS (David Harrington, Benoit Claise) have at
  some point been involved and provided feedback on various aspects.

  Ted Hardie kindly provided a early apps-dir review
  that helped in improving the document quality quite a lot.

  A Media Type review was requested on, but was
  never formally performed. However, in some private exchages
  triggered by the review request, no issues were raised.


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

  Enrico Marocco is the document shepherd, Spencer Dawkins is the
  responsible AD.

(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 document shepherd has followed the specification process
  closely, implementing a proof-of-concept client application himself
  ( He has proofread the final
  version of the document and believes it is ready for publication.

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

  Each and every word has been read by litteraly hundreds of
  eyes. However, the document shepherd believes that additional
  external reviews (e.g. apps-dir and/or gen-art) would be beneficial,
  esp. to spot areas in the document that may turn out unclear to the
  unexperienced reader.

(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.

  The document specifies an HTTP-based application layer protocol,
  following the best practices generally referenced as REST-ful and
  requesting the registration of several media types. All these
  aspects have been approached under the supervision of APPS experts
  (Peter Saint-Andre, Martin Thomson, Richard Barnes, Alexey
  Melnikov) and should probably be re-checked for consistency. The
  document has also received a review from OPS perspective (from
  Benoit Claise).

  Ted Hardie kindly provided a early apps-dir review
  that helped in improving the document quality quite a lot.

  A Media Type review was requested on, but was
  never formally performed. However, in some private exchages
  triggered by the review request no issues were raised.

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

  According to the document shepherd the document is good. In
  particulary, all that could be removed has been removed.

(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?

  The authors (at the time of publication request) are not aware of
  any IPR on the document and believe that it is compliant with IETF
  copyright and IPR policy rules.

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

  No IPR disclosure references this document. Two IPR disclosures
  (#1628 and #1718) were filed regarding proposed extensions to the
  protocol, but the WG decided not to integrate them in the base

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

  Strong consensus.

(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.)


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

  IDnits only returns a bunch of tabulation warnings, regarding
  pseudo-code intdentation.

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

  Media types are being nailed down under the supervision of the APPS
  tech advisor and with the help of APPS experts.

  A Media Type review was requested on, but was
  never formally performed. However, in some private exchages
  triggered by the review request no issues were raised.

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

  Yes. Please note that this specification heavily relies on JSON,
  currently defined in the soon-to-be-updated Informational RFC
  4627. Such reference, despite normative in nature, is at this point
  listed as 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?

  The document builds up on JSON specs (currently RFC 4627), de-facto
  standard despite being defined in an Informational RFC. A fix for
  such an incostincency is being worked on in the JSON WG.
  Pragmatically the WG does not see any issue with referencing RFC
  4627 in either the normative section or informative
  section. Updating the reference and adding a normative dependency to
  draft-ietf-json-rfc4627bis seems less desirable as it would delay
  the publication indefinitely. The process-wise decision is anyway
  deferred to the IESG.

(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.

  With the exception of the potentialy issue described in (14), there
  are no downrefs.

(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 WG considers it unnecessary.


(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

  The document requests registration of ten media types and the
  creation of four registries. All IANA actions have been carefully
  ponderated, in accordance to guidelines in RFC 5226.

(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 document defines four new registries: an ALTO Cost Metric
  Registry, an ALTO Endpoint Property Type Registry, an ALTO Address
  Type Registry and an ALTO Error Code Registry. This is the minimum
  set identified in the working group for achieving proper
  extensibility of the new protocol. The review process identified at
  this point for future allocations is "IETF Review".

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

  No automated checks were required other than IDnits.