Shepherd writeup

## What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard, Internet  Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)?

Proposed standard. This is a normative WG document, and this is the proper type.

## The IESG approval announcement includes a Document  Announcement Write-Up.

### Technical Summary:

This document defines a poll-based HTTP transport for SETs (security events) which are specified in RFC 8417. The document defines transport using HTTP POST and TLS, as well as  optional assurance for such delivery.

### Working Group Summary

There is WG consensus for publishing this document, and no ocntroversy.

### Document Quality

Are  there existing implementations of the protocol? Have a significant  number of vendors indicated their plan to implement the specification?  Are there any reviewers that merit special mention as having done a  thorough review, e.g., one that resulted in important changes or a  conclusion that the document had no substantive issues? If there was a  MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, Media Type or other expert review, what was its course (briefly)? In the case of a Media Type review, on what date was  the request posted? 

Implementations: Microsoft has the protocol running in production. No noteworthy reviews, and no special expertise required, beyond the working group's core expertise.

## Personnel

Yaron Sheffer is the document shepherd. Ben Kaduk is the responsible AD.

## Briefly describe the review of this document that was performed by the Document Shepherd. 

I reviewed this document again and my comments were fully addressed by a new revision. I believe the document is now ready for publication.

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

I do not have such concerns.

## Do portions of the document need review from a particular or from  broader perspective?

No such reviews.

## 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?

The document is ready and the protocol addresses a real need expressed by WG constituents. It should be noted that the WG consciously decided to publish two alternative transports for SETs using HTTP Push and Poll, and this is one of them.

## 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?


## 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.

## How solid is the WG consensus behind this document? 

Full consensus, though this is a relatively small community. 

## Has anyone  threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? 


## Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this document. 

I have checked for I-D nits and no such nits remain, other than a reference to an obsolete RFC (TLS 1.2, RFC 5246) which is appropriate in this context.

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


## Have all references within this document been identified as either normative or informative? 


## 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? 

There is a normative reference to a companion "push" document which is being published concurrently.

## 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. 

As noted above, RFC 5246 (TLS 1.2).

## Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? 


## Describe the Document Shepherd's review of the IANA considerations  section

The document requires no IANA actions. It does depend on an error code registry, defined in the "push" document.

## List any new IANA registries that require Expert Review for future  allocations.


## Describe reviews and automated checks performed by the Document Shepherd to validate sections of the document written in a formal language.


## If the document contains a YANG module...