Skip to main content

Shepherd writeup
draft-ietf-sacm-epcp

(1) What type of RFC is being requested? Why is this the proper type of RFC?

Intended status: Standards Track. This is appropriate as the draft specifies
the use of components, formats, and protocols.

(2) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document Announcement Write-Up.
Please provide such a Document Announcement Write-Up.

Technical Summary:
This document specifies the Endpoint Posture Collection Profile, which
describes the requirements for the application of IETF, TNC, and ISO/IEC data
models, protocols, and interfaces to support the ongoing collection and
communication of endpoint posture to a centralized server where it can be
stored and made available to other tools.

Working Group Summary:
This document has been carefully reviewed by the working group since its
inception ten revisions ago. There were no seriously contentious discussions
within the scope of this draft. Initially, the draft was more NEA focused;
however, subsequent revisions expanded it and made it more inclusive.

Document Quality:
This document is a profile of existing protocols. Vendors already implement the
referenced protocols. Customers or enterprises would implement the profile in
their deployments. The US Government is trying to implement the profile in its
environments.

Personnel:
Who is the Document Shepherd? Karen O'Donoghue
Who is the Responsible Area Director? Roman Danyliw

(3) Briefly describe the review of this document that was performed by the
Document Shepherd.

The shepherd reviewed the document for language and IETF process items. The
working group performed the full technical review of the document. The document
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.

(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?

There are no required reviews beyond those that will be conducted during the
IETF publication process.

(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.

No specific concerns or 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.

Yes.

(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document?

No relevant IPR has been disclosed.

(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 reasonable for the small number of active participants in the working
group. Those with the most comments historically have indicated their backing
of this draft.

(10) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent?

None are known.

(11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this document.

Two miscellaneous warnings (one about lack of the recommended RFC 2119
boilerplate, which can be added by the RFC Editor, and the other notes the
publication date of the draft being 150 days in the past).

Several outdated references were detected.
Several possible downref possibilities were detected.
The authors are aware of these, and they plan for these to be addressed after
submission in conjunction with the AD review.

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

None 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?

Yes, listed as follows:
* I-D.ietf-mile-xmpp-grid
* I-D.ietf-netconf-restconf-notif
* I-D.ietf-sacm-coswid
* I-D.ietf-sacm-terminology

We intend for these to be addressed after submission.

(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. ID-nits did detect possible downward references, but these are to mature
non-IETF specifications.

(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.

(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).

This document does not define any new, or update any existing, IANA registries.

(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.

None.

(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.

This document does not contain any formal language exhibits.

(20) If the document contains a YANG module, has the module been checked with
any of the recommended validation tools
(https://trac.ietf.org/trac/ops/wiki/yang-review-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?

This document does not contain any YANG modules.
Back