Shepherd writeup
rfc6648-05

(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?
Alexey Melnikov is the document shepherd for the document.
I personally reviewed it and I believe it is ready for IESG review.

(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?

I believe the document had sufficient number of reviews from the WG.
No concerns about the depth of the reviews.

(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?

No concerns of this kind.

(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.

No concerns.

        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.

No IPR disclosure was filed on this document.

(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?

I believe the document has reached rough consensus in the WG.
There were some people who expressed their disagreement about
scope or general directions, but I think their comments were
addressed. Some other participants might remain unhappy, but
I think they are in the rough.


(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 threat of appeal was indicated.

(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?

Id-nits 2.12.13 is mostly happy with the document.
All Informative references to obsolete documents are intentional.

No other specialized reviews are needed.


(1.h) Has the document split its references into normative and 
        informative?

Yes, the references are properly split.

        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 to published RFCs.
There are no Downrefs.

(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 exists and correctly doesn't request
any actions from IANA.

(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?

The document doesn't use ABNF, XML, etc. so no formal language fragment
validation is needed.

(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.

Historically, designers and implementers of application protocols
have often distinguished between "standard" and "non-standard"
parameters by prefixing the latter with the string "X-" or similar
constructions.  In practice, this convention causes more problems
than it solves.  Therefore, this document deprecates the "X-"
convention for newly defined textual parameters in application
protocols.

   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 the scope of the document, in particular if it
intends to change any existing IANA registries which use "X-"
namespace (or similar) and whether it applies to registries that
use numeric values. As per WG discussion, the answer to both
questions above is "no" and the document was clarified to reflect
that.

   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?

The document doesn't define a protocol. At least 1 specification already
voluntarily conforms to the recommendations specified in the document.
Back