Shepherd writeup
draft-ietf-dance-tls-clientid

Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents: draft-ietf-dance-tls-clientid-02

This review is dated 2025-06-28.

DATE OF THIS WRITE-UP: 2025-07-25.

>Document History
>Does the working group (WG) consensus represent the strong concurrence of a
>few individuals, with others being silent, or did it reach broad agreement?

The document is the result of a strong concurrence of a few individuals.

>Was there controversy about particular points, or were there decisions where
>the consensus was particularly rough?

No.  It is a very boring document :-)

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

No.

> 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 recommends) or elsewhere
> (where)?

1. https://gitlab.rd.nic.fr/dance/dance:
    https://gitlab.rd.nic.fr/dance/tls/-/compare/ae733121dda969ce83b08f8b71d1ef69307a18d0...main


>Additional Reviews
>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.

No sectoral reviews have taken place yet.
The IANA allocation will no doubt result in a review by TLS Expert Reviewers.

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

None needed.

> If the document contains a YANG module, has the final version of the module

No YANG module.

>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 such formal languages

>Document Shepherd Checks
>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?

The document is ready.

>Several IETF Areas have assembled lists of common issues that their
>reviewers encounter. For which areas have such issues been identified
>and addressed? For which does this still need to happen in subsequent
>reviews?

No.

>What type of RFC publication is being requested on the IETF stream (Best
>Current Practice, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard,

Proposed Standard is appropriate for this document.

>Have reasonable efforts been made to remind all authors of the intellectual
>property rights (IPR) disclosure obligations described in BCP 79? 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.

>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.

>Document any remaining I-D nits in this document. Simply running the idnits
>tool is not enough; please review the "Content Guidelines" on
>authors.ietf.org. (Also note that the current idnits tool generates
>some incorrect warnings; a rewrite is underway.)

There are explicit references to TLS 1.2 (RFC5246, 6347), which idnits thinks
are obsolete, but they are correct.

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

All seem like they need to be normative.

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

None.

>Are there any normative downward references (see RFC 3967 and BCP
>97) that are not already listed in the DOWNREF registry? If so,
>list them.

no.

>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?

Yes, DANECLIENT, which is in the queue for DANCE.

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

No.

>Describe the document shepherd's review of the IANA considerations section,
>especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the document.

The shepherd found the IANA considerations to have inadequate text, and has
asked for it to be revised.

Back