Subject: [http-state] PROTO Publication Request for draft-ietf-httpstate-cookie

From: =JeffH <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 18 Nov 2010 12:46:12 -0800

Document Shepherd Write-Up for
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-httpstate-cookie-18
"HTTP State Management Mechanism"

   (1.a) Who is the Document Shepherd for this document? Has the
         Document Shepherd personally reviewed this version of the
         document and, in particular, does he or she believe this
         version is ready for forwarding to the IESG for publication?

The Document Shepherd is Jeff Hodges.

The document has been reviewed and is ready for forwarding to IESG for
publication.

   (1.b) Has the document had adequate review both from key WG members
         and from key non-WG members? Does the Document Shepherd have
         any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that
         have been performed?

The document had one official WG Last Call, and has been revised and
re-reviewed several times since issuance of WG Last Call. It received
considerable review from working group participants, several of whom are
implementors of the (sub)protocol.  Commenters include (in no particular order)
Dan Witte, Daniel Stenberg, Bjoern Hoehrmann, Julian Reschke, Anne van
Kesteren, Roy T. Fielding, Mark Pauley, Yngve Nysaeter Pettersen, Bil Corry,
Dan Winship, and others.

The Document Shepherd does not have concerns about the depth or breadth
of the reviews.

   (1.c) Does the Document Shepherd have concerns that the document
         needs more review from a particular or broader perspective,
         e.g., security, operational complexity, someone familiar with
         AAA, internationalization or XML?

The document should undergo the usual Gen-ART and secdir reviews.
Otherwise the Document Shepherd does not have concerns over the level and
breadth of review for this document. This is a moderate length document
although with some involved algorithms -- schedules for external reviews should
keep that in mind.

   (1.d) Does the Document Shepherd have any specific concerns or
         issues 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. Has an IPR disclosure related to this document
         been filed? If so, please include a reference to the
         disclosure and summarize the WG discussion and conclusion on
         this issue.

The document shepherd has no concerns with this document.

There have been no IPR disclosures on this document. Disclosure number 1199 was
filed on RFC2965. This spec will obsolete RFC2965 and requests that RFC2965 and
RFC2109 be re-classified as Historic.

This draft borrows from RFC2109 and so asserts pre-RFC5378 IPR boilerplate.

   (1.e) 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?

Among the people currently active in the WG there is a wide consensus
behind the document. No objections have been raised to this version of the
document.

   (1.f) 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
         entered into the ID Tracker.)

Nobody has threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent.

   (1.g) Has the Document Shepherd personally verified that the
         document satisfies all ID nits? (See the Internet-Drafts Checklist
         and http://tools.ietf.org/tools/idnits/). Boilerplate checks are
         not enough; this check needs to be thorough. Has the document
         met all formal review criteria it needs to, such as the MIB
         Doctor, media type and URI type reviews?

idnits 2.12.05 returns a few other warnings that do not appear to be
substantive. The Document Shepherd believes that the document contains
all needed information.

   (1.h) Has the document split its references into normative and
         informative? 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
         strategy for their completion? Are there normative references
         that are downward references, as described in [RFC3967]? If
         so, list these downward references to support the Area
         Director in the Last Call procedure for them [RFC3967].

The draft contains both normative and informative references.

The draft contains a normative reference to an obsoleted specification,
RFC3490, and an annotation is given in its References entry pointing back to
the text where this is explicitly explained (in Section 6.3). This is due to
the intricacies of referencing IDNA{2008,2003}, of which this document is a
test case by virtue of being one of the first to do so.

Otherwise the draft normatively references only standards-track RFCs.

The draft contains informative references to both RFC2109 and RFC2965 (the
latter obsoletes the former) because RFC2109 more closely resembles (but
doesn't actually specify) how HTTP cookies are implemented and utilized on
today's Internet, and references to both are necessary to accurately convey the
present state, and history, of cookie standardization.

The draft contains informative references to three non-IETF documents.

   (1.i) Has the Document Shepherd verified that the document IANA
         consideration section exists and is consistent with the body
         of the document? If the document specifies protocol
         extensions, are reservations requested in appropriate IANA
         registries? Are the IANA registries clearly identified? If
         the document creates a new registry, does it define the
         proposed initial contents of the registry and an allocation
         procedure for future registrations? Does it suggest a
         reasonable name for the new registry? See [RFC5226]. If the
         document describes an Expert Review process has Shepherd
         conferred with the Responsible Area Director so that the IESG
         can appoint the needed Expert during the IESG Evaluation?

The draft contains a non-empty IANA Considerations section, and the Document
Shepherd believes that it properly references the appropriate registry and
properly specifies new entries in that registry.

   (1.j) Has the Document Shepherd verified that sections of the
         document that are written in a formal language, such as XML
         code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc., validate correctly in
         an automated checker?

The draft contains various ABNF stanzas which were checked via
<http://tools.ietf.org/tools/bap/abnf.cgi> which reported "No errors during
parsing."

   (1.k) 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
         Relevant content can frequently be found in the abstract
         and/or introduction of the document. If not, this may be
         an indication that there are deficiencies in the abstract
         or introduction.

This document defines the HTTP Cookie and Set-Cookie HTTP header fields as they
are presently utilized on the Internet. Although these headers were previously
specified by RFC 2109, which is obsoleted by RFC2965, those specifications do
not accurately reflect actual usage. These header fields can be used by HTTP
servers to store state (called cookies) at HTTP user agents, letting the
servers maintain a stateful session over the mostly stateless HTTP protocol.
This specification defines a well-behaved profile of in-the-wild Cookie and
Set-Cookie header usage for servers, and describes the full cookie syntax and
semantics for user agents. The intention is to realistically support backwards
compatibility with current practice (and accurately specify such) while
encouraging servers and web applications to normalize to more standardized
behavior.

Because this specification provides the first complete and accurate
documentation of cookies as they are used on the Internet, it requests the
following actions of the RFC Editor:

   (1) obsolete RFC 2965;
   (2) change the status of RFC 2109 to Historic;
   (3) change the status of RFC 2965 to Historic.

      Working Group Summary
         Was there anything in WG process that is worth noting? For
         example, was there controversy about particular points or
         were there decisions where the consensus was particularly
         rough?

There is strong consensus in the working group to publish this document.

There were concerns raised with respect to the differing presentation
modalities (declarative versus algorithmic) between the specification of
server-side behavior and user agent behavior, although the WG worked through
those issues.

      Document Quality
         Are there existing implementations of the protocol? Have a
         significant number of vendors indicated their plan to
         implement the specification? Are there any reviewers that
         merit special mention as having done a thorough review,
         e.g., one that resulted in important changes or a
         conclusion that the document had no substantive issues? If
         there was a MIB Doctor, Media Type or other expert review,
         what was its course (briefly)? In the case of a Media Type
         review, on what date was the request posted?

The HTTP cookie sub-protocol as specified in the draft is widely implemented in
todays major browsers. Some existing servers implement something close to or
the same as the draft's "server reqirements" while others emit various
variations which the "user agent requirements" are designed to handle. Various
browser implementors participated in the working group, as well as some
server-side implementors. HTTPbis editors also participated.

Without this specification, cookies as presently utilized on the Internet are
effectively un-specified. With this specification, an implementor will be able
to craft a new user agent or server that will interoperate with other presently
deployed HTTP-speaking cookie-employing entities.

###

idnits 2.12.05

tmp/draft-ietf-httpstate-cookie-18.txt:

   Checking boilerplate required by RFC 5378 and the IETF Trust (see
   http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info):
   ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

      No issues found here.

   Checking nits according to http://www.ietf.org/id-info/1id-guidelines.txt:
   ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

      No issues found here.

   Checking nits according to http://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist :
   ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

      No issues found here.

   Miscellaneous warnings:
   ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

   -- The document has a disclaimer for pre-RFC5378 work, but was first
      submitted on or after 10 November 2008.  Does it really need the
      disclaimer?

   -- The document date (November 9, 2010) is 9 days in the past.  Is this
      intentional?

   Checking references for intended status: Proposed Standard
   ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

      (See RFCs 3967 and 4897 for information about using normative references
      to lower-maturity documents in RFCs)

   ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 3490 (Obsoleted by RFC 5890, RFC 5891)

   -- Obsolete informational reference (is this intentional?): RFC 2109
      (Obsoleted by RFC 2965)

      Summary: 1 error (**), 0 warnings (==), 3 comments (--).

      Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about
      the items above.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

###
end