Shepherd writeup
rfc8790-07

        As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document 
        Shepherd Write-Up.

        Changes are expected over time. This version is dated 24 February 2012.

        (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 specification defines a set of media types to
be used in interchange.

        (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

   The Sensor Measurement Lists (SenML) media type and data model can
   be used to send collections of resources, such as batches of sensor
   data or configuration parameters.  The existing media types
   (defined in RFC 8428) are useful for the traditional operations
   GET, PUT, POST.  The CoAP iPATCH, PATCH, and FETCH methods enable
   accessing and updating parts of a resource or multiple resources
   with one request.  For using these methods to access and operate on
   resources represented with the SenML data model, the present
   document defines variants of the SenML media types, for JSON and
   CBOR representations only.

        Working Group Summary

   Most of the discussion in the WG (up to and including the last
   call) centered around whether the existing media types should be
   shoe-horned into use with the new methods or new media types were
   needed.  In the end, having a simple way to apply a slight variant
   won out over having a more complex way to apply something that is
   nominally, but not really SenML.  Christian Amsüss was kind enough
   to summarize his view of the result of the discussion into a Wiki
   page:
   https://github.com/core-wg/wiki/wiki/On-media-types-for-FETCH-and-(i)PATCH
   which will be useful in avoiding revisiting the issues when they
   inevitably come up for the next media type.

        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?

Implementations of this media type will often be done in the context
of the OMA LWM2M specification, which is set to pick up the new media
types in future versions (1.1.1 hints: "The media types,
application/senml-etch+json and application/senml-etch+cbor, will
remove the requirement for context aware parsing.").  None of the
implementations this shepherd is aware of is public yet: one existing
implementation, and one implementation that is in the product plan of
a vendor.

A media type review has been requested 2019-07-12 in
⁨<https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/media-types/UYGLx96gkwArLtwawiiNDBcxzTU>⁩


        Personnel

          Who is the Document Shepherd? Who is the Responsible Area
          Director?

Shepherd: Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org> (CoRE Co-chair)
Responsible AD: Alexey Melnikov

        (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.

This document was reviewed by the Shepherd in a "Chair's Review", a
process step we like to exercise in the CoRE WG before issuing a WGLC.
The document is ready.

        (4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or
        breadth of the reviews that have been performed?

This is a simple specification.  The WGLC ended without any further
reviews at all, maybe because the document is so obvious.  After some
nudging, re-reviews came from previous commenters (Christian Amsüss)
as well as a new review from Klaus Hartke, whose comments were then
addressed in -04.

        (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.

        (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.

None.

        (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; both authors indicated to the Shepherd that they are not
personally aware of any IPR claims applying to this specification.

        (8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document?
        If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR
        disclosures.

No.

        (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?   

SenML is a bit of a specialty topic in the WG.  Those interested in
SenML, understand and agree.

        (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.) 

No.

        (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
        thorough.

None found.

        (12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review
        criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.

A media type review has been requested 2019-07-12 in
⁨<https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/media-types/UYGLx96gkwArLtwawiiNDBcxzTU>⁩

        (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 normative references are Proposed Standard RFCs (plus BCP 14).

        (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. 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 8126).

No new registries.  Registration of two new media types and the
attendant CoRE Content-Format numbers.

        (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.

No 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.

No FDT were in use.

The JSON examples in the specification have been checked by the
Shepherd; a superfluous comma in the second JSON example (FETCH
response) in Section 3.1 needs to be removed before advancing the
document.
Back