Shepherd writeup
rfc6522-04

PROTO writeup for draft-ietf-appsawg-rfc3462bis-01

The Applications Area Working Group requests the publication of draft-ietf-appsawg-rfc3462bis-01 as a Draft Standard, replacing RFC 3462.

  (1.a) Who is the Document Shepherd for this document? Has the
        Document Shepherd personally reviewed this version of the 
        document and, in particular, does he or she believe this 
        version is ready for forwarding to the IESG for publication? 

Barry Leiba is the document shepherd.  I have reviewed this version, and am satisfied that it's ready.

  (1.b) Has the document had adequate review both from key WG members 
        and from key non-WG members? Does the Document Shepherd have 
        any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that 
        have been performed?  

The document has adequate review, and I have no concerns.

  (1.c) Does the Document Shepherd have concerns that the document 
        needs more review from a particular or broader perspective, 
        e.g., security, operational complexity, someone familiar with 
        AAA, internationalization or XML? 

I have no concerns.

  (1.d) Does the Document Shepherd have any specific concerns or 
        issues 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. Has an IPR disclosure related to this document 
        been filed? If so, please include a reference to the 
        disclosure and summarize the WG discussion and conclusion on 
        this issue. 

I have no concerns.  There is no IPR involved.

  (1.e) 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?   

There is consensus of the working group, as a whole, behind it.

  (1.f) 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 
        entered into the ID Tracker.) 

No.

  (1.g) Has the Document Shepherd personally verified that the 
        document satisfies all ID nits? (See the Internet-Drafts Checklist 
        and http://tools.ietf.org/tools/idnits/). Boilerplate checks are 
        not enough; this check needs to be thorough. Has the document 
        met all formal review criteria it needs to, such as the MIB 
        Doctor, media type and URI type reviews? 

Yes.

  (1.h) Has the document split its references into normative and 
        informative? 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 
        strategy for their completion? Are there normative references 
        that are downward references, as described in [RFC3967]? If 
        so, list these downward references to support the Area 
        Director in the Last Call procedure for them [RFC3967]. 

All references are properly separated and labelled.  There are no downward references.

  (1.i) Has the Document Shepherd verified that the document IANA 
        consideration section exists and is consistent with the body 
        of the document? If the document specifies protocol 
        extensions, are reservations requested in appropriate IANA 
        registries? Are the IANA registries clearly identified? If 
        the document creates a new registry, does it define the 
        proposed initial contents of the registry and an allocation 
        procedure for future registrations? Does it suggest a 
        reasonable name for the new registry? See [RFC5226]. If the 
        document describes an Expert Review process has Shepherd 
        conferred with the Responsible Area Director so that the IESG 
        can appoint the needed Expert during the IESG Evaluation? 

The IANA Considerations section is correct and adequate.

  (1.j) Has the Document Shepherd verified that sections of the 
        document that are written in a formal language, such as XML 
        code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc., validate correctly in 
        an automated checker?

There is no formal language in this document.

  (1.k) 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. 

The multipart/report media type is a general "family" or "container" type for electronic mail reports of any kind.  Although this memo defines only the use of the multipart/report media type with respect to delivery status reports, mail processing programs will benefit if a single media type is used for all kinds of reports.

Practical experience has shown that the general requirement of having that media type constrained to be used only as the outermost MIME type of a message, while well-intentioned, has provided little operational benefit and actually limits such things as the transmission of multiple administrative reports within a single overall message container.  In particular, it prevents one from forwarding a report as part of another multipart MIME message.

This update removes that constraint.  No other changes apart from some editorial ones are made.

     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? 

There was initially concern that the original requirement that multipart/report be a top-level-only media type was done for a good reason, and that the requirement should not be removed entirely.  After some discussion, it seemed that the right approach was to retain the requirement in the context of newly generated DSNs, but to lift it in the more general case.  This version of the document does just that, by reference to the original DSN specifications, and that formulation has broad consensus.

     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? 
        
Multipart/report is very widely implemented and deployed, and, in fact, it has been used in the form described herein, with the top-level constraint ignored, for years.  Ned Freed, who is the expert reviewer for media types, has reviewed this update and is happy with it.
Back