Document Shepherd: D. Crocker <email@example.com>
(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?
Standards Track. This document specifies a common format to be used on the Internet. It builds on related work that is already in use. The intended status is on the 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:
This document specifies the "file" Uniform Resource Identifier (URI) scheme, replacing the definition in RFC 1738. It defines a common syntax which is intended to interoperate across the broad spectrum of existing usages. It also notes some other current practices around the use of file URIs.
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
The work was done in the Apps Area Working group and has received significant community comment, with multiple revisions resulting. Support for the work appears solid.
[CHAIR and SHEPHERD NOTE: This document went through two WGLCs. The first one yielded some input but the document shepherd review identified numerous issues that resulted in a flurry of other review traffic and document revisions. A second WGLC was then done that yielded no feedback at all. We suspect this is a result of wandered interest (since APPSAWG is closing) rather than any indication that the document is not sound or does not have consensus to proceed.]
Document development had some coordination with the W3C community, which can be expected to use this work.
Who is the Document Shepherd? Who is the Responsible Area
Document Shepherd: D. Crocker <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Responsible AD: Alexey Melnikov
Process management: M. Kucherawy <email@example.com>
(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
I did an extensive review on the first Last Call's version, and this prompted substantial additional community discussion and input, as well as significant revisions to the specification. There have been two revisions since then and, in my opinion, the current version is now focused and clear, and resolves the concerns that were raised.
The file: scheme is of obvious utility and this revised specification should be quite helpful.
(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or
breadth of the reviews that have been performed?
I am now comfortable with the depth and breadth of reviews that have been done.
(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
I am not aware of any 'coordinating' reviews that are needed at this point.
(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
No specific concerns or issues.
(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.
No special IPR concerns are present.
(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document?
If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR
No related IPR statements have been filed.
(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?
The work was a short-term effort in the Apps Area WG. Such efforts typically do not accrue very large numbers of participants. That said, this document had input that was varied in kind and sources. I believe resulting support is solid.
(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.)
I am not aware of any concerns about document process or content.
(11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this
document. (See https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts
Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be
(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review
criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.
No special review requirements.
(13) Have all references within this document been 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?
(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.
(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 5226).
IANA section looks good to me.
(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.
(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.
I reviewed the contained ABNF carefully.