Shepherd writeup

PROTO writeup for draft-ietf-marf-authfailure-report

  (1.a) Who is the Document Shepherd for this document? Has the
        Document Shepherd personally reviewed this version of the 
        document and, in particular, does he or she believe this 
        version is ready for forwarding to the IESG for publication? 

I (Murray Kucherawy) am the Document Shepherd.  I have personally reviewed
the document and I believe it is ready for IESG consideration.

  (1.b) Has the document had adequate review both from key WG members 
        and from key non-WG members? Does the Document Shepherd have 
        any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that 
        have been performed?

The document has been through two Working Group Last Calls, including
spontaneous WG reviews and some I solicited directly.  I have no concerns
about any lack in coverage of those reviews.

  (1.c) Does the Document Shepherd have concerns that the document 
        needs more review from a particular or broader perspective, 
        e.g., security, operational complexity, someone familiar with 
        AAA, internationalization or XML?

I have no such concerns.

  (1.d) Does the Document Shepherd have any specific concerns or 
        issues 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. Has an IPR disclosure related to this document 
        been filed? If so, please include a reference to the 
        disclosure and summarize the WG discussion and conclusion on 
        this issue. 

I have no such concerns.  There are no relevant IPR disclosures of which I am
aware.  The document has a demonstrated need.

  (1.e) 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 has reviewed it through two WGLCs, including some specific
members that I approached for reviews.  The WG understands its need and
the contexts in which it will be useful.

  (1.f) 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 
        entered into the ID Tracker.) 

There have been no such indications.

  (1.g) Has the Document Shepherd personally verified that the 
        document satisfies all ID nits? (See the Internet-Drafts Checklist 
        and Boilerplate checks are 
        not enough; this check needs to be thorough. Has the document 
        met all formal review criteria it needs to, such as the MIB 
        Doctor, media type and URI type reviews? 

All such requirements have been met.  No specific review criteria need to
be met for this work.

  (1.h) Has the document split its references into normative and 
        informative? 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 
        strategy for their completion? Are there normative references 
        that are downward references, as described in [RFC3967]? If 
        so, list these downward references to support the Area 
        Director in the Last Call procedure for them [RFC3967]. 

The document contains an appropriate normative/informative split of its

There is a normative reference to draft-ietf-marf-redaction which is seeking Proposed Standard status.  It will advance to the IESG shortly.

There is a downward reference to RFC4408 (SPF), which is Experimental.  The Working group feels this is acceptable since it is a widely-deployed protocol (and in fact another working group being chartered now is seeking to move it to Proposed Standard), and it is used in this document in an optional way.

  (1.i) Has the Document Shepherd verified that the document IANA 
        consideration section exists and is consistent with the body 
        of the document? If the document specifies protocol 
        extensions, are reservations requested in appropriate IANA 
        registries? Are the IANA registries clearly identified? If 
        the document creates a new registry, does it define the 
        proposed initial contents of the registry and an allocation 
        procedure for future registrations? Does it suggest a 
        reasonable name for the new registry? See [RFC5226]. If the 
        document describes an Expert Review process has Shepherd 
        conferred with the Responsible Area Director so that the IESG 
        can appoint the needed Expert during the IESG Evaluation? 

The IANA Considerations section is present and complete; it updates existing
registries as needed by the remainder of the document.

  (1.j) Has the Document Shepherd verified that sections of the 
        document that are written in a formal language, such as XML 
        code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc., validate correctly in 
        an automated checker? 

I have run the ABNF through a checker via the WG Chairs' tools page.  Errors
it found have been corrected.

  (1.k) 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 memo registers an extension report type to ARF for use in
   reporting messages that fail one or more authentication checks
   performed on receipt of a message, with the option to include
   forensic information describing the specifics of the failure.

     Working Group Summary 

   This memo underwent two Working Group Last Calls because of the amount
   of last-minute feedback generated during the first.  There was no
   controversy of note.

     Document Quality 

   There is substantial deployment of ARF, upon which these extensions are
   based.  There is one widely deployed open source implementation of the
   extension with more under development which will see widespread use.
   Reviewers and expressions of intent to support included PayPal and Hotmail.