Shepherd writeup

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 1 November 2019.

(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? 

Proposed Standard

(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:

The standard defines a more compact and concise format using CBOR encoding for the ISO ISO-19770-2:2015 SWID (Software Identifier) information format.  The standard allows more compact exchange of this information as opposed to the ISO XML format.

Working Group Summary:

The only controversy was related to the document signing defined in CoSWID and if that should be using a JWT/CWT  compatible signature or the one defined in the standard.

Document Quality:

This has had through reviews and in particular strong reviews from NIST involved in the ISO standard development.


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

Shepherd SACM WG Chair: Chris Inacio (
Responsible AD: Roman Danyliw (

(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've thoroughly reviewed the document twice and it has gone through WGLC twice as well.

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


(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. 

If there were CBOR expert review; although one of the coauthors has been involved in CBOR development and there isn't a CBOR expert review available to the best of my knowledge.

(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. 


(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?

Not yet, but we're calling them out here.

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

No IPR disclosures.

(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 it has strong WG support excepting the JWT/CWT issue.

(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 and the Internet-Drafts Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be thorough. 

Only outdated references which will be resolved during IESG submission waiting for the chair writeup.

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


(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 8126). 

The IANA sections have been checked for the new registries requested, including review and initial definitions.

(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. 

CoSWID Items Registry - combination of Standards action for lower set of code point range and (standards) specification for higher set of code point range.  Higher range code points are intended for allocation by SDOs that are not IETF.

SWID/CoSWID Version Scheme Registry - Standards action for lower set of code point range and specification for higher set of code point range.  Expert review and instructions provided.

Additions to the following new registries are per the defined expert review:

Entity Role Values - These initial entries match the ISO/IEC 19770-2:2015 standard
SWID/CoSWID Link Ownership Values - These initial entries match the ISO/IEC 19770-2:2015
SWID/CoSWID Link Relationship Value Registry - These initial entries match the ISO/IEC 19770-2:2015
SWID/CoSWID Link Use Value Registry - These initial entries match the ISO/IEC 19770-2:2015

(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, YANG modules, etc.

None.  I would like to have automated checks for CBOR definitions, but those do not yet exist.

(20) If the document contains a YANG module, has the module been checked with any of the recommended validation tools ( for syntax and formatting validation? If there are any resulting errors or warnings, what is the justification for not fixing them at this time? Does the YANG module comply with the Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA) as specified in RFC8342?