Shepherd writeup
rfc7373-10

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?

   Informational. The header indicates: "Category: Informational".
   The document defines a textual representation of IPFIX information 
   elements. This is not needed for the IPFIX protocol operation,
   but provides a human-readable representations and allows exchange
   with other protocols. However, since no concrete translation and
   interoperability use case is addressed, this document is targeting at
   an Informational RFC. 

(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 defines UTF-8 representations for IPFIX abstract data
   types, to support interoperable usage of the IPFIX Information
   Elements with protocols based on textual encodings.

Working Group Summary:

   The WG has consensus that this document is useful and has discussed 
   and reviewed it.  There is strong consensus on the document.

Document Quality:

   It is a short document with clear structure and clear definitions.
   The WG has reviewed it at WGLC and received comments have been 
   addressed.

Personnel:

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

   Juergen Quittek is the document shepherd.
   Benoit Claise is the responsible Area Director.

(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.

   The document shepherd has reviewed the draft and is fully convinced
   that it is ready for publication.

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

   During WG last call the document received reviews from key WG members.
   Several comments were made and have been  addressed when updating 
   the document after the reviews. The shepherd has no concern about the 
   depth or breadth of the reviews.

(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.

   There are no such issues.

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

   There are no IPR disclosures filed.

(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 as a whole understands and agrees with it.

(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.

   There are no nits.
   
(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.

   There is no further formal review required.

(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 (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 5226).

  There IANA considerations section states that there is no IANA consideration required for this 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.

  There are no new IANA registries requested by this document.

(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.

   I checked ABNF that is used for formally describing encodings. 
   All discovered issues have been fixed by the author. 
Back