Shepherd writeup
rfc8044-08

draft-ietf-radext-datatypes
===========================

(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 document will be a Standards Track specification. This is the proper category because it clarifies a significant number of existing Standards-Track RFCs; making changes to their IANA registries in the process.

(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:

RADIUS specifications have used data types for two decades without
defining them as managed entities.  During this time, RADIUS
implementations have named the data types, and have used them in
attribute definitions.  This document updates the specifications to
better follow established practice.  We do this by naming the data
types defined in RFC 6158, which have been used since at least RFC
2865.  We provide an IANA registry for the data types, and update the
RADIUS Attribute Type registry to include a "Data Type" field for
each attribute.  Finally, we recommend that authors of RADIUS
specifications use these types in preference to existing practice.

Working Group Summary:

This document has received many iterations of review by almost all
active participants. There is a broad consensus that this type of
document is needed. A number of specifications in the queue are
waiting for this RFC to exist so that they have a stable point of
reference.

Document Quality:

The document has overall gotten sufficient review. One small area
of concern for the Shepherd is the long list of attributes and their
retrofitted datatypes in section 4.2: this was a signficant amount
of legwork for the author, and this kind of work is prone to errors.
Even though the working group reviewed the document as such, it
can't be expected that all of them did the cross-reference legwork
to look up all attributes and their datatypes in the original RFCs.
Nevertheless, the document is ready for the publication process:
IETF Last Call should motivate the community at large to at least
check the attributes of concern for them and find corresponding
errors if any.

Personnel:

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


The Document Shepherd is Stefan Winter <stefan.winter@restena.lu>. 
The responsible Area Director is Kathleen Moriarty (kathleen.moriarty.ietf@gmail.com).

(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's revision number -02 does not accurately reflect its history: it had already received a good amount of working group scrutiny during its long lifetime as an individual submission.

That said, the shepherd reviewed the current version -02 in its entirety; for chapter 4.2 a sample of 5 attributes was chosen for the external cross-check in other RFCs.

The review led to two new revisions. In the shepherd's opinion, -04 is now ready for publication. 

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

A remaining caveat is that the list of attribute to data type mappings was not reviewed in its entirety, as the list is very big. The shepherd counts on the preceding working group scrutiny and the IETF last call to catch errors in all those.

(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.

This document is basically "mop-up" legwork with no particular complexity.

(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 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?

The author confirmed that he is not aware of any IPR on the document.

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

Nothing 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 document got interest from and was reviewed by a comparatively large number of participants. radext is a working group with few active contributors, and by that measure, it is safe to say that the whole working group understands this.

(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 threat of appeal.

(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.

All nits which the shepherd found in -02 were fixed for -04. idnits has a few remaining issues with it, but they are somewhat heuristic:


  -- The draft header indicates that this document updates RFC2865, but the
     abstract doesn't seem to directly say this.  It does mention RFC2865
     though, so this could be OK.

  -- The draft header indicates that this document updates RFC3162, but the
     abstract doesn't seem to mention this, which it should.

  -- The draft header indicates that this document updates RFC6158, but the
     abstract doesn't seem to directly say this.  It does mention RFC6158
     though, so this could be OK.
     
idnits also is confused in one point:

  == Unused Reference: 'RFC7499' is defined on line 1637, but no explicit
     reference was found in the text
     
This can be disregarded; RFC7499 is mentioned in chapter 4 just fine.

idnits also advises towards caution regarding pre-5378 text; the author confirmed that he did not import any text from the pre-5378 era and that corresponding boilerplate text is not needed.

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

None of these reviews are 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?

All normative references are stable.

(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.

All normative references are either Standards Track or Best Current Practice.

(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.

The document updates a number of documents but does not change any document track status. Considering that it touches just about every RADIUS related specification, a rule was established for which of those are mentioned in Updates and which not:

If the only change to a document is the addition of a data type tag to an attribute, with no on-the-wire consequences, then this document is not mentioned in Updates. Documents with more significant changes are.

(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 defines one new registry and has many updates to an existing one. The new registry is well-defined and has a good name. Its allocation procedure is defined (IETF Review / Standards Action).

(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.

The new registry is Standards Action, so no particular expert is needed. The RADIUS wg and AAA doctors conduct an ongoing review of new specifications in the field of RADIUS and will be able to provide input to those specifications at an early stage.

(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.

There is no such content in the document.
Back