(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?
Standards track RFC is requested. Yes, this appears on the
title page of the Internet-Draft.
(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 extends the STIR PASSporT specification to allow the
inclusion of cryptographically-signed assertions to indicate that a
call has been diverted from its original destination to a new one.
Working Group Summary
The STIR WG reached consensus, and there is strong support for
publication of this document.
Document Quality
Several people have expressed interest in implementing this
specification.
Personnel
Russ Housley is the Document Shepherd.
Adam Roach 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 did a complete review of -05, and all items
of concern were corrected.
(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or
breadth of the reviews that have been performed?
No concerns at all.
(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.
The JWT claim registration was requested on 12 April 2019:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/jwt-reg-review/1r37p6v5mOBJlmvhu0bndbZQEOo
No additional review is needed.
(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 concerns at all.
(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 has confirmed that he is unaware of any IPR
disclosures that need to be submitted.
(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 submitted against 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?
The STIR WG reached consensus, and there is strong support for
publication of this document.
(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 one has threatened to appeal or expressed discontent.
(11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this
document. (See https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts
Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be
thorough.
IDnits raises two warnings. The first warning is about the use of
[RFCThis] in the IANA Considerations section. This will be resolved
by IANA and the RFC Editor as part of publication. The second warning
is about the 'Updates:' line on the title page. It should say:
Updates: 8224 (if approved)
That is, the "RFC" should not be included.
(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review
criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.
No additional formal review is needed for this document.
(13) Have all references within this document been identified as
either normative or informative?
Yes, informative and normative references appear is separate
sections in the document.
(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?
The [RFCThis] reference will progress at roughly the same time.
(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.
There are no downrefs.
(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, publication of this document will not change the status of
any other documents.
(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 IANA considerations appear to be complete.
(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.
No new IANA registries are created. Some entries are added to
existing IANA registries.
(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.
None is needed for this document.