draft-ietf-sacm-nea-swid-patnc shepherd write-up
(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?
This document is being requested for publication as an Internet Standard RFC.
It provides normative requirements surrounding an extension to the IETF NEA
specifications (RFC 5209) with the goal of using the NEA protocols to deliver
endpoint software inventory information. The intended status is shown on the
title page.
(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 defines normative requirements for an extension to IETF NEA (RFC
5209) for the collection and delivery of software inventory information from an
endpoint to a NEA server.
Working Group Summary:
The document has working group consensus for publication, and has been reviewed
by several WG participants since its initial adoption as a working group item.
Document Quality:
This document has been reviewed and revised many times. It is well written and
clear. There were no specific external expert reviews conducted.
Personnel:
Karen O'Donoghue is acting as the Document Shepherd. Kathleen 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 IESG.
The document shepherd has followed the working group process and reviewed the
final document and feels this document is ready for IESG review.
(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of
the reviews that have been performed?
The document shepherd does not have any concerns about the reviews that were
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.
This document does not require any special reviews beyond those planned during
the IESG review 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? 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.
The Document Shepherd is comfortable with this document as a set of
requirements to drive the SACM working group efforts in the future. The
documents represent the consensus of the working group.
(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 authors have confirmed that they have dealt with all appropriate IPR
disclosures.
(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 have been filed that reference this document.
(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?
Parts of the workgroup are interested in different subsections of the SACM
architecture. Within the portion of SACM that is focusing on collecting data
from endpoints, there is strong consensus behind this document.
(10) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent?
If so, please summarize the areas of conflict in separate email messages to the
Responsible Area Director.
There have been no threats of anyone appealing the documents.
(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.
###There are ID nits that need to be fixed, but we'll make sure they are done
once Kathleen has done her review.
(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such
as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.
There are no formal review criteria for this document.
(13) Have all references within this document been identified as either
normative or informative?
All references are tagged as 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?
All normative references are to published documents.
(15) Are there downward normative references (see RFC 3967)? If so, list these
downward references to support the Area Director in the Last Call procedure.
No references are made to documents at a lower maturity level.
There are normative references to ISO/IEC 19770-2-2009 and ISO/IEC
19770-2-2015, both of which are behind a paywall.
(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.
This document will not change the status of any existing RFC. This document
extends NEA along standard extension points built into that specification and
requires no changes to any NEA specification.
(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).
(###Need to finish in parallel with Kathleen's review)
(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.
A new entry is added to the existing “PA Subtype” registry defined in RFC 5792.
This addition requires expert review as defined in section 7.1 in that
specification. 10 new entries are added to the existing “PA-TNC Attribute
Types” registry defined in RFC 5792. This addition requires expert review as
defined in section 7.1 in that specification.
6 new entries are added to the existing “PA-TNC Error Codes” registry defined
in RFC 5792. This addition requires expert review as defined in section 7.1 in
that specification.
The specification defines a new registry named “Software Data Model Types”.
Addition of further entries to this registry will require 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.
There are no formal language sections in this document.