Shepherd writeup
rfc8742-02

(1) The document is set as a Proposed Standard.  A media and
streaming type are defined and it is expected that these will
be commonly used.  The RFC is correctly tagged.

(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

  This document describes how a sequence of CBOR objects can
  be transmitted in an environment that uses media types.  A
  CBOR sequence is not a legal CBOR object.

  The document also defines a structured syntax for allowing
  generic parsing of CBOR sequences using "+cbor-seq".

Working Group Summary

  There was some discussion about the need to define this
  data structure as it can be done by the use of an indefinite
  array.  The consensus of the working group was that this
  would be a useful item to have.

Document Quality

  The document is simple and understandable.  I have seen code
  for one implementation of CBOR Sequences and it appeared to
  match the document from a brief reading of the code.
  All of the registrations have been sent to the appropriate
  review mailing list and there has been no returned comments.

Personnel

  The Document Shepherd is Jim Schaad.  The Responsible Area
  Director is Alexey Melnikov.

(3) I did the following items: 1) read the document, 2) checked the
document against the nits list, 3) read the mailing list to make sure
all of the WGLC issues were dealt with.  There is a formatting issue
in the text version that is a result of the interaction between
the markdown that is used by the author and xml2rfc.  The formatting
issue is not present in the html version and is fixable by the RPC
without any problems.

(4) While the document has only recently been adopted, there has been
extensive discussions on the list.  I am happy with the amount of
discussion.

(5)  I do not believe that a broader perspective is needed on the
document.  The reviews in the WG should be sufficient.

(6) I have no concerns with the document.

(7) All authors have confirmed that they neither have or are aware of
any IPR related to this document
** Carsten Bormnn *** 19 Aug 2019

(8) No IPR disclosures have been filed.

(9) This is a strong concensus of the active participants.  Only a single
voice suggested that it might not be necessary.

(10) There has been no strong dissent during the document discussions.

(11) No nits found.

(12) The document needs to have a review done for the media type
to be registered and for the Structured Syntax Suffix.  Message was
sent to the list 14 Aug 2019.

(13) All references are correctly tagged.

(14) There are no dependencies on documents that are not published.  If
the document is delayed for some reason then it would be updated to refer
the the Internet Standard for CBOR.

(15) There are no downward references.

(16) This document makes no changes to any existing documents.  CDDL (RFC 8610)
defined the concept of a CBOR Sequence, this document formalized how
it can be transported.

(17) I looked at the one template that I was not familiar with and made sure
that it was correct.  The set of items in the IANA section match those that
are declared as being created in the text.

(18) No new registries are created

(19) No review to validate any sections of the document is required.

Back