[Taps] Shepherd writeup for the implementation draft
"Brian Trammell (IETF)" <ietf@trammell.ch> Thu, 20 October 2022 07:12 UTC
Return-Path: <ietf@trammell.ch>
X-Original-To: taps@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: taps@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B3736C14CE47 for <taps@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 20 Oct 2022 00:12:06 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -7.108
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.108 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=trammell.ch
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id JdyR3fcGREYI for <taps@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 20 Oct 2022 00:12:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp-8fad.mail.infomaniak.ch (smtp-8fad.mail.infomaniak.ch [83.166.143.173]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A5450C14F72A for <taps@ietf.org>; Thu, 20 Oct 2022 00:12:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp-3-0000.mail.infomaniak.ch (unknown [10.4.36.107]) by smtp-2-3000.mail.infomaniak.ch (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4MtJgg050VzMqTW7 for <taps@ietf.org>; Thu, 20 Oct 2022 09:11:59 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from smtpclient.apple (unknown [IPv6:2a02:169:17b2:0:ac44:9cdc:ed31:badb]) by smtp-3-0000.mail.infomaniak.ch (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 4MtJgf5wZJzxB for <taps@ietf.org>; Thu, 20 Oct 2022 09:11:58 +0200 (CEST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=trammell.ch; s=20191114; t=1666249918; bh=Bb66KSvGWDW5XZvF1ojBxKn/HvtCKyiHXYCkcu53i8A=; h=From:Subject:Date:To:From; b=tU/XWXHPuulqe0idXguTWhZrfgpMGoJZnp+XB24v9aRvytFMZGt0l2/EihE49rRPc Y6snXAz/fcwhfX9Q0zJedOgJW2leUYEil/JbcrJc1DDK1BjegaPHTSzDUCummEEU+f TX21pLcxSHRF/C7VWijPGTvvEaNRdhQXEiqEpQxY=
From: "Brian Trammell (IETF)" <ietf@trammell.ch>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 16.0 \(3696.120.41.1.1\))
Message-Id: <97BBD270-F022-48EC-8BF9-9361D58B8E1B@trammell.ch>
Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2022 09:11:58 +0200
To: taps@ietf.org
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3696.120.41.1.1)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/taps/PIirb74rap-iT2nJF28m2rBaRPo>
Subject: [Taps] Shepherd writeup for the implementation draft
X-BeenThere: taps@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
Precedence: list
List-Id: "IETF Transport Services \(TAPS\) Working Group" <taps.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/taps>, <mailto:taps-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/taps/>
List-Post: <mailto:taps@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:taps-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/taps>, <mailto:taps-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2022 07:12:06 -0000
Greetings, all, The shepherd writeup for the implementation draft is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-taps-impl/shepherdwriteup/ and is copied below; if any WG contributors have issues with the text here, please speak up now. The only potential issue found by IDNITS with the document are overlong lines in 6.2 and 6.3; I presume these can be fixed with any other editorial changes in the RFC Editor process (and indeed, I’m a little confused about how much we care about line printer formats in 2022), so noted the issue and will leave a fix to editors’ prerogative. Cheers, Brian # Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents *This version is dated 4 July 2022.* Thank you for your service as a document shepherd. Among the responsibilities is answering the questions in this write-up to give helpful context to Last Call and Internet Engineering Steering Group ([IESG][1]) reviewers, and your diligence in completing it is appreciated. The full role of the shepherd is further described in [ RFC 4858 ][2]. You will need the cooperation of the authors and editors to complete these checks. Note that some numbered items contain multiple related questions; please be sure to answer all of them. ## Document History 1. Does the working group (WG) consensus represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others being silent, or did it reach broad agreement? This document reached broad agreement, with contributions from most active WG members. 2. Was there controversy about particular points, or were there decisions where the consensus was particularly rough? No. 3. 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. (It should be in a separate email because this questionnaire is publicly available.) No. 4. For protocol documents, are there existing implementations of the contents of the document? Have a significant number of potential implementers indicated plans to implement? Are any existing implementations reported somewhere, either in the document itself (as [RFC 7942][3] recommends) or elsewhere (where)? This document gives implementation guidelines for the Transport Services reference architecture and API describe in the -arch and -interface drafts; it reflects experience gained in one widely deployed production implementation and two open implementations deployed for research purposes, as listed in Appendix C. ## Additional Reviews 5. Do the contents of this document closely interact with technologies in other IETF working groups or external organizations, and would it therefore benefit from their review? Have those reviews occurred? If yes, describe which reviews took place. The implementation draft has benefited from broad TSV area review within the WG itself, and has had artart early review. 6. Describe how the document meets any required formal expert review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews. No formal review necessary. 7. If the document contains a YANG module, has the final version of the module been checked with any of the [recommended validation tools][4] 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 [RFC 8342][5]? No YANG module. 8. Describe reviews and automated checks performed to validate sections of the final version of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, CBOR's CDDL, etc. No formal notation, so no automated checks. ## Document Shepherd Checks 9. Based on the shepherd's review of the document, is it their opinion that this document is needed, clearly written, complete, correctly designed, and ready to be handed off to the responsible Area Director? Yes. 10. Several IETF Areas have assembled [lists of common issues that their reviewers encounter][6]. For which areas have such issues been identified and addressed? For which does this still need to happen in subsequent reviews? The artart early review was relatively thorough; secdir comments apply more to the companion drafts, as do comments recieved for many of the int area topics (esp. v6). 11. What type of RFC publication is being requested on the IETF stream ([Best Current Practice][12], [Proposed Standard, Internet Standard][13], [Informational, Experimental or Historic][14])? Why is this the proper type of RFC? Do all Datatracker state attributes correctly reflect this intent? Informational is appropriate for experience-driven implementation guidelines. 12. Have reasonable efforts been made to remind all authors of the intellectual property rights (IPR) disclosure obligations described in [BCP 79][7]? To the best of your knowledge, have all required disclosures been filed? If not, explain why. If yes, summarize any relevant discussion, including links to publicly-available messages when applicable. To the best of my knowledge, all appropriate IPR claims (i.e., none) have been filed. 13. Has each author, editor, and contributor shown their willingness to be listed as such? If the total number of authors and editors on the front page is greater than five, please provide a justification. Yes; there are five listed authors. 14. Document any remaining I-D nits in this document. Simply running the [idnits tool][8] is not enough; please review the ["Content Guidelines” on authors.ietf.org][15]. (Also note that the current idnits tool generates some incorrect warnings; a rewrite is underway.) Overlong lines in sections 6.2 and 6.3 may need an editorial fix. Reference issues will be fixed by a document rebuild. 15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the [IESG Statement on Normative and Informative References][16]. Verified. 16. List any normative references that are not freely available to anyone. Did the community have sufficient access to review any such normative references? No non-IETF normative references. 17. Are there any normative downward references (see [RFC 3967][9] and [BCP 97][10]) that are not already listed in the [DOWNREF registry][17]? If so, list them. No. 18. Are there normative references to documents that are not ready to be submitted to the IESG for publication or are otherwise in an unclear state? If so, what is the plan for their completion? No: the companion drafts will be submitted and published together. 19. Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? If so, does the Datatracker metadata correctly reflect this and are those RFCs listed on the title page, in the abstract, and discussed in the introduction? If not, explain why and point to the part of the document where the relationship of this document to these other RFCs is discussed. No. 20. 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 aspects of the document requiring IANA assignments are associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm that each newly created IANA registry specifies its initial contents, allocations procedures, and a reasonable name (see [RFC 8126][11]). This document has no actions for IANA, which is appropriate. 21. List any new IANA registries that require Designated Expert Review for future allocations. Are the instructions to the Designated Expert clear? Please include suggestions of designated experts, if appropriate. No new IANA registries [1]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/ [2]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4858.html [3]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7942.html [4]: https://trac.ietf.org/trac/ops/wiki/yang-review-tools [5]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8342.html [6]: https://trac.ietf.org/trac/iesg/wiki/ExpertTopics [7]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp79 [8]: https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ [9]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3967.html [10]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp97 [11]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8126.html [12]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-5 [13]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.1 [14]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.2 [15]: https://authors.ietf.org/en/content-guidelines-overview [16]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/normative-informative-references/ [17]: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/downref/
- [Taps] Shepherd writeup for the implementation dr… Brian Trammell (IETF)
- Re: [Taps] Shepherd writeup for the implementatio… Tommy Pauly