Shepherd writeup
rfc6755-06

(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?

The target is Informational.  It is just registering a URN Namespace
and does not specify any protocol elements.  Therefore, Informational
is an appropriate designation.  Yes, this is indicated in the title
page 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 establishes an IETF URN Sub-namespace for use with
   OAuth related specifications.

Working Group Summary

   There was no significant controversy in the working group, to my
   knowledge.  I suppose there really wasn't an argument about how to
   spell "oauth".

Document Quality

   The document is as long and short as it needs to be to register a
   URN entry with IANA.

Personnel

  Document Shepherd:  Derek Atkins
  Responsible AD:  Stephen Farrell


(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 reviewed this document in completion, reading through multiple times
while writing this writeup.  Luckily the document is relatively short.
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?  

No, I have no concerns.  It is straightforward requesting a URN and
providing means to request sub-URNs within the namespace.


(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, no additional reviews are necessary.


(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, I have no concerns.


(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.

I do not know, but I do not believe that any IPR applies as this is
just a document to register a URN.  I don't believe there is any IPR
on the name OAUTH.


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

Not to my knowledge.


(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 believe there is strong consensus, however there is a silent
majority within the WG.  With the simplicity of this document I
suspect most people had no objections and therefore did not speak up.


(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.

None.


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

No additional reviews should be necessary.


(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, this does not affect any other documents.


(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).

The IANA Considerations are consistent and appropriate.  The new URN
space has an appropriate registration description.


(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.

While not explicitly stated as such, the IANA Registry only requires
an RFC.  There is no Expert Review.


(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 only performed a manual review.  The tools server says that ID-Nits
passed.
Back