(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?
This document is targeted to become a Proposed Standard. This extension to the
Received header field is intended for widespread use and thus Proposed Standard
is suitable.
(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
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.
This document registers a trace field clause for use in indicating
transitions between handling queues or processing states, including
enacting inter- and intra-host message transitions. This might
include message quarantining, mailing list moderation, timed
delivery, queueing for further analysis, content conversion, or other
similar causes, as well as optionally identifying normal handling
queues. This allows inspection of the trace information to reveal that
the cause for a time gap in trace fields was an imposed delay rather
than one caused by transient technical difficulties.
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 WG discussed appropriate IANA procedure for the new registry
created by the document. The WG was deciding between Expert Review
and FCFS. Consensus was a rough on this one.
Otherwise the document is really non controversial.
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?
There is at least one existing implementation of this specification. At least
two more are planned.
No special purpose review (such as Media Type review) is needed for this
document.
Personnel
Who is the Document Shepherd? Who is the Responsible Area
Director?
Alexey Melnikov is the document shepherd. Barry Leiba 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.
I've performed a review similar to the one I used to do for AD sponsoring a
document. I checked ABNF (manually and using BAP) and also verified nits
using id-nits.
(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or
breadth of the reviews that have been performed?
No.
(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.
No. This document had sufficient reviews from the email community, which
is the main community this document is targeting.
(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.
No specific concerns.
(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.
Yes, the authors confirmed that they don't need to file any IPR disclosures.
(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document?
If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR
disclosures.
No IPR was filed on this document.
(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 document has solid WG 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.)
There were no threats of appeal.
(11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this
document. (See http://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts
Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be
thorough.
id-nits reports no nits.
(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review
criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.
This document doesn't specify a MIB, media type or URI.
(13) Have all references within this document been identified as
either normative or informative?
Yes.
(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?
All references are to RFCs.
(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.
No.
(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.
No.
(17) Describe the Document Shepherd's review of the IANA considerations
section, especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the
document.
The document creates a new registry. The IANA Considerations section is
consistent with that.
Confirm that all protocol extensions that the document makes
are associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries.
Yes.
Confirm that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly
identified.
Yes.
Confirm that newly created IANA registries include a
detailed specification of the initial contents for the registry,
Yes.
that
allocations procedures for future registrations are defined,
Yes.
and a reasonable name for the new registry has been suggested (see RFC
5226).
Yes.
(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 doesn't require Expert 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.
The document contains ABNF that was verified with BAP. Some ABNF rules are
imported from RFC 5322 and RFC 2045.