dns ranking data agenda request and datatracker shepherd writeup template

dnsop-ietf122/dnsop-ietf122-agenda-requests.md

@@ -78,3 +78,9 @@
     - Requester Email: Yorgos Thessalonikefs, <yorgos@nlnetlabs.nl>
     - Time Requested: 15 min
     - DocType: I-D
+
+*   Draft name: Clarifications to the DNS Ranking Data
+    - Datatracker URL: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-fujiwara-dnsop-ranking-data/
+    - Requester Email: Kazunori Fujiwara <fujiwara@jprs.co.jp>, Willem Toorop <willem@nlnetlabs.nl>
+    - Time Requested: 15 min
+    - DocType: I-D

dnsop-templates/datatracker-shepherd-writeup.txt

@@ -0,0 +1,137 @@
+# 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?
+
+2. Was there controversy about particular points, or were there decisions where
+   the consensus was particularly rough?
+
+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.)
+
+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)?
+
+## 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.
+
+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.
+
+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]?
+
+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.
+
+## 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?
+
+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?
+
+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?
+
+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.
+
+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.
+
+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.)
+
+15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the [IESG
+    Statement on Normative and Informative References][16].
+
+16. List any normative references that are not freely available to anyone. Did
+    the community have sufficient access to review any such 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.
+
+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?
+
+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.
+
+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]).
+
+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.
+
+[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://wiki.ietf.org/group/ops/yang-review-tools
+[5]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8342.html
+[6]: https://wiki.ietf.org/group/iesg/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/
+
+