[Taps] shepherd writeup for -arch draft

[Michael Welzl <[e-mail]>]

Hi everyone!

I’m now done with the shepherd writeup for the -arch draft; see https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-taps-arch/shepherdwriteup/ <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-taps-arch/shepherdwriteup/> and below.
If any WG contributors have issues with the text here, please speak up now.

Cheers,
Michael

******************

# 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)?

I guess this one doesn't count as a "protocol document".


## 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.

This draft has benefited from broad TSV area review within the WG
itself, and has had secdir and 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 MIB models, YANG models, media types, URI types etc. are used in the document, and so I think such a formal expert review is not needed.


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]?

It does not contain a 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 sections of the document are written in a formal language.


## 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?

None of these issues have been identified. Since the document only gives a high-level overview, it is not prone to the typical problems listed for transport documents, such as issues with PDU sizes, port number use, hijacking codepoints, etc.


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?

Proposed Standard.

Why is this the proper type: the charter of the TAPS WG says that this document shall take that status. The status is correctly reflected in the Datatracker state attribute: "Intended RFC status". I don't see any other related state attribute.


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.

Yes; no IPR issues are known.


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, they have all shown their willingness to be listed as such. There are five 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.)

The idnits tool complains about an Umlaut "ü". The authors decide to ignore this and leave it up to the RFC Editor.

The document has a "Security and Privacy Considerations" Section. According to the idnits tool and https://authors.ietf.org/recommended-content these should be two separate sections. The authors decided to leave this as it is for now and let the ADs decide about this matter.


15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the [IESG
   Statement on Normative and Informative References][16].

No.


16. List any normative references that are not freely available to anyone. Did
   the community have sufficient access to review any such normative
   references?

None.


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.

None.


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.


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]).

There are no IANA considerations.


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.

There are no IANA considerations.



[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/