Shepherd writeup
draft-ietf-httpbis-bcp56bis-15

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)? Why is this the proper type of RFC? Is this type of RFC indicated in the title page header? 

BCP, which is indicated in the document header. This is appropriate since it is a revision of a BCP. It is indicated in the header. 

(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 updates advice to applications on how to use HTTP as a substrate for defining APIs. The previous guidance was from 2002, so this document does a lot to incorporate our learnings over the past 20 years.

Working Group Summary:

This document has been in the working group for quite a while now, as it was held for submission alongside the new HTTP core document revision. In general, there is good consensus. The one discussion point that arose in the WGLC which had a bit rougher consensus was about the level of normative requirement required for two issues: specifically, if use of HTTPS (HTTP with TLS) is RECOMMENDED or a MUST; and whether the use of HTTPS is a MUST for all authentication types. Some WG members do not want to make this more strict, since not all use cases for HTTP need or can use TLS; others believe that the use case addressed by this document (HTTP APIs over the Internet) is specific enough that the security requirement is appropriate.

Document Quality:

The document is well-written and carefully reviewed.

Personnel:

Shepherd: Tommy Pauly
Responsible AD: Francesca Palombini

(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've review the document and find it ready for publication.

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

No concerns.

(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. 

The issue described above, regarding requirement of HTTPS, may be useful to have input from the security area on.

(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. 

The one area I'd like to see discussed is the point about requiring HTTPS.

(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?

No IPR disclosures. All authors confirmed. 

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

No IPR disclosures.

(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? 

The WG consensus seems strong, with many reviewers over a long period of time. The only disagreement outstanding is the point that has been raised earlier.

(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 appeals.

(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. 

Only one nit:

  -- The draft header indicates that this document obsoletes RFC3205, but the
     abstract doesn't seem to mention this, which it should.

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

No formal review applicable.

(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. 

Yes, it will obsolete RFC3205. This may be good to note in the abstract, which it does not currently. However, this RFC is quite old, so I'll leave it up to AD advice.

(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 IANA Considerations.

(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 IANA Considerations.

(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.

Not applicable.

(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?

Not applicable.
Back