Shepherd writeup
rfc9055-16

> 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 1 November 2019.

> (1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard,
> Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)?

Informational

> Why is this the proper type of RFC?

This document provides context for the DetNet WG and has guided the
development of WG data plane documents, but does not itself define any
protocol formats or mechanisms.

> Is this type of RFC indicated in the title page header?

Yes

> (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 addresses DetNet-specific security considerations from
   the perspective of both the DetNet component designer and the DetNet
   system-level designer. this document provides an
   association of threats against various use cases by industry, and
   also against the individual service properties as defined in the
   DetNet Use Cases.

   This document also addresses common DetNet security considerations
   related to the IP and MPLS data plane technologies (the first to be
   identified as supported by DetNet), thereby complementing the
   Security Considerations sections of the various DetNet Data Plane
   (and other) DetNet documents.

> 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 significant discussion on what should be in this document and
if it was sufficient.  In the end, the document was indirectly reviewed
by several in the security directorate, as part of their reviews of the
previously submitted (for publication) data plane document and the
general feeling was that this document was in sufficient maturity to be
submitted for publication/

> 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, YANG 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 is one of the foundation documents for other DetNet WG
activities. It notably has had contributions from end-user part of the
market.

> Personnel:
> 
>   Who is the Document Shepherd?
Lou Berger

> Who is the Responsible Area Director?
Deborah Brungard

> (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 have reread this document as it progressed as well as in its final
form.  All significant comments have been addressed. The document is
ready for publication. 

> (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.

While this document has be read/commented on by some in the security
directorate, we certainly expect that it will receive an additional
review as part of normal IESG processing.

> (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.

> (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, see:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/detnet/oCh4L5p5qPO26RfV7RDP_UxzRac/


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

N/A.

> (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?

I think the document has good support from active contributors.

> (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 http://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts
> Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be
> thorough.

Some of the informational references are to outdated versions.

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

N/A.

> (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?

No.

> (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, N/A.

> (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 requests are made in the document.

> (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.

None.

> (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, YANG modules,
> etc.

N/A

> (20) If the document contains a YANG module, has the module been checked
> with any of the recommended validation tools
> (https://trac.ietf.org/trac/ops/wiki/yang-review-tools) for syntax and
> formatting validation? If there are any resulting errors or warnings,
> what is the justification for not fixing them at this time? Does the
> YANG module comply with the Network Management Datastore Architecture
> (NMDA) as specified in RFC8342?

There are no yang models.
Back