(A Usage for Shared Resources in RELOAD (ShaRe) draft-ietf-p2psip-share-07)
(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?
This document defines extensions to RFC6940, and so has the same requested
Is this type of RFC 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:
The document defines extensions for the RELOAD protocol to manage shared
write access to resources. This specification also adds mechanisms to store
Resources with a variable name which is useful whenever peer-independent
rendezvous processes are required.
Working Group Summary
There was no controversy or difficulty to reach Working Group consensus.
There has been at least two implementations of the protocol, one by the
authors, another by the Document Shepherd.
Who is the Document Shepherd?
Who 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 Document Shepherd has done a multiple reviews over the years, together
with an implementation of this document. More recently a final review found
some issues that were fixed by the authors in the last revision of the
document. The Document Shepherd believes the document is ready for
forwarding to IESG for publication.
(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or
breadth of the reviews that have been performed?
In addition to private reviews sent directly to the authors, at least two
other member of the WG have reviewed the document in addition to the Document
Shepherd. The Document Shepherd has no concerns about the depth or breadth
of these 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
No additional review of portions of the document was needed.
(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
The Document Shepherd has no specific concerns or issues regarding the
(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.
(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document?
If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR
(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?
There is WG consensus behind this document.
(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.)
(11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this
document. (See https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts
Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be
The idnits tool v2.13.02 returns 2 comments, one about an incorrect
detection of code in the text, and another about a down reference about an
(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review
criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.
The document meets the review criteria.
(13) Have all references within this document been identified as
either normative or informative?
(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?
(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.
(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.
(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 document registers a new Access Control Policy and a new Data Kind-ID,
both in registries defined in RFC 6940.
The document also registers a new URI in the config XML namespace registry
defined in RFC 3688.
(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.
(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.
The Document Shepherd has manually verified the data structures defined using
the description language defined in RFC 6940. The regular expression used as
example in section 5.1 has also been manually verified. Finally the Relax NG
Grammar has been verified by a verification tool.