Skip to main content

Shepherd writeup
draft-op3ft-leaptofrogans-uri-scheme

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 24 February 2012.

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

  Informational.

Why
is this the proper type of RFC?

  The document specifies the URI scheme definition 
  to enable registration of a permanent scheme, for 
  which the registration policy is Expert Review; thus 
  IETF consensus is not necessary.

Is this type of RFC indicated in the
title page header?

  Yes.

(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 describes the 'leaptofrogans' Uniform Resource
   Identifier (URI) scheme, which enables applications to launch Frogans
   Player on a given Frogans site.  Frogans is a medium for publishing
   content and services on the Internet, defined as a generic software
   layer on the Internet.  Frogans Player is software enabling end users
   to browse Frogans sites.

Working Group Summary

  This document is not the product of a working group.

Document Quality

  The document addresses the requirements of RFC 7595 for
  registration of a permanent URI scheme.  Expert Review was
  requested on the URI-Review list 2018-09-14; the primary 
  feedback concerned handling of characters outside the ASCII
  range.  As a result, the recommended procedures were brought
  in line with percent-encoding rules from RFC 3986, as reflected 
  in version -03 of draft-op3ft-leaptofrogans-uri-scheme.

Personnel

  The Document Shepherd is Peter Saint-Andre and the 
  Responsible Area Director is Alexey Melnikov.

(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.

  During review of version -03 of draft-op3ft-leaptofrogans-uri-scheme, 
  the Document Shepherd raised two small issues with the authors: (a)
  it might be best to retain Section 3 (instead of asking the RFC Editor to
  remove it) and (b) it seems possible for an unofficial application to be
  used in launching Frogans sites, which could route around a security
  policy mentioned in Section 7 according to which Frogans Player 
  "must always display the real Frogans address contained in the URI".
  In the opinion of the Document Shepherd, the authors can consider 
  this feedback along with any other IETF Last Call feedback.

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

  The document was reviewed by experts on the URI-Review list, and
  modified as described above.  The Document Shepherd does not have
  concerns about the depth of review.

(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.

  In accordance with RFC 7595, expert review occurred on the URI-Review
  discussion list, as described above.

(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.

  Two small concerns are mentioned under (3) above.

(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.

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

  Although no IPR disclosures have been filed, the document notes
  that the OP3FT (a non-profit organization that acts as a steward of
  Frogans technologies) grants to the IETF Trust a perpetual license to use
  the "Frogans" trademark as part of the scheme name.

(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?   

  This document is not the product of a working group.

(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 appeals have been threatened.

(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.

  The ID Nits tool reveals no issues.

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

  The document received expert review on the URI-Review list and
  feedback was incorporated.

(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?

  There are no such references.

(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. 

  The document makes the following normative reference:

  [IFAP]     OP3FT, "International Frogans Address Pattern",
                 Version 1.1, ISBN 978-2-37313-000-3, November 2014,
                 <https://www.frogans.org/en/resources/ifap/access.html>.

  Given that the published RFC will have a status of Informational,
  a normative reference to a non-IETF specification might be 
  problematic; however, the IESG might need to consider whether
  OP3FT is to be considered a recognized standards body.

(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 does not change the status of any existing RFC.

(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 Document Shepherd has reviewed the IANA Considerations
  section of the specification and believes it is consistent with the
  requirements of RFC 7595.

(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 registries are requested.

(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.

  The ABNF definitions includes two rules (frogans-address
  and pct-encoded-frogans-address) that are not defined in terms
  of ABNF but instead are described in prose, with reference to a
  formal definition in the "International Frogans Address Pattern"
  (IFAP) specification published by OP3FT.  Although this does not 
  appear to be a problem (and the IFAP specification is thorough), 
  reviewers should be aware of the external citation.
Back