reviewing-ietf-drafts

name	reviewing-ietf-drafts
description	Reviews and critiques IETF Internet-Drafts and RFC submissions for style compliance, technical clarity, prior art gaps, and publication readiness. Use when analyzing existing drafts or providing editorial feedback.
requires	["writing-ietf-w3c-specs"]

IETF Draft Reviewer

Systematic review of Internet-Drafts for RFC publication readiness.

When to Use

Use this skill when:

• Reviewing an existing Internet-Draft before submission
• Providing editorial feedback on a colleague's draft
• Checking your own draft against IETF requirements
• Evaluating a draft for technical clarity and completeness

Review Methodology

Phase 1: Structural Scan

Quick pass to verify all required elements are present.

Element	Required?	Check
Abstract	Yes	Self-contained, no citations
Requirements Language (RFC 2119)	If keywords used	Boilerplate in Section 2
Terminology	If domain-specific terms	Definitions before first use
Security Considerations	Always	Substantive content
IANA Considerations	Always	Even if "no actions"
Internationalization	If applicable	Character sets, localization
References	Yes	Normative/Informative split

Phase 2: Style Compliance (RFC 7322)

Detailed review against RFC Style Guide.

Requirement Keywords

Issue	Example	Severity
Lowercase normative	"should validate"	HIGH - change to SHOULD
MUST in informational text	"Users MUST read the docs"	MEDIUM - use lowercase
Ambiguous modal	"may or may not"	HIGH - clarify intent
Missing RFC 2119 reference	Keywords used, no boilerplate	HIGH - add Section 2

Citation Format

Wrong	Correct
[1]	[RFC2119]
(see page 5)	(see Section 3.1)
RFC 2119 inline	[RFC2119]
Mixed normative/informative	Separate reference sections

Text Format

Issue	Recommendation
Lines > 72 chars in diagrams	Reformat to fit
Tabs in source	Convert to spaces
Non-ASCII characters	Use ASCII equivalents or declare UTF-8
Orphan headers	Keep header with following paragraph

Phase 3: Technical Clarity

Evaluate whether the specification is implementable.

Precision Checklist

• All terms defined before first use
• Numeric ranges explicit (inclusive/exclusive stated)
• Units always specified ("30 seconds" not "timeout of 30")
• Edge cases documented
• Error conditions enumerated
• Default values stated for optional parameters
• State machines have defined transitions

Ambiguity Flags

Pattern	Problem	Fix
"appropriate"	Undefined	Specify criteria
"reasonable"	Subjective	Give bounds
"typically"	Non-normative	Use SHOULD or document exceptions
"etc."	Incomplete	Enumerate or use "and others"
"as needed"	Vague	Define triggers

Phase 4: Prior Art & Conflicts

Related Work Check

1. RFC Search: Does the draft cite all relevant existing RFCs?
2. I-D Search: Any active drafts covering similar ground?
3. WG Conflict: Is an IETF Working Group already addressing this?
4. Updates/Obsoletes: If modifying existing RFC, is metadata correct?

Conflict Indicators

Signal	Risk	Action
Active WG on same topic	High	May get DNP (Do Not Publish)
Recent RFC in same area	Medium	Ensure proper citations
Competing I-D	Medium	Differentiate or consolidate
Patent mentions	Variable	Verify IPR disclosure

Phase 5: Publication Readiness

Stream Appropriateness

Stream	Valid Status	Consensus Required
IETF	Standards Track, BCP, Info, Exp	Yes
Independent	Informational, Experimental, Historic	No
IRTF	Informational, Experimental	IRSG
IAB	Informational	IAB

Blocking Issues

Issue	Impact	Resolution
Normative ref to unpublished I-D	MISSREF state	Make informative or wait
Missing IANA registry policy	Blocks publication	Add per RFC 8126
No Security Considerations	Rejected	Add substantive section
IPR not disclosed	Legal risk	File IPR disclosure

---

Review Output Template

When reviewing a draft, produce a report with this structure:

# Review: draft-name-version

## Summary
[One paragraph overall assessment]

## Structural Issues
- [ ] Issue 1
- [ ] Issue 2

## Style Violations
| Location | Issue | Recommendation |
|----------|-------|----------------|
| Section X | ... | ... |

## Technical Clarity
[Ambiguities, undefined terms, missing edge cases]

## Prior Art Gaps
[Missing citations, potential conflicts]

## Publication Blockers
[Issues that MUST be resolved before submission]

## Recommendations
1. Priority fix 1
2. Priority fix 2
...

---

Common Issues by Section

Abstract

Issue	Example	Fix
Contains citations	"as defined in [RFC9110]"	Remove, describe inline
Undefined acronyms	"TLS"	Expand: "Transport Layer Security (TLS)"
Too long	> 200 words	Condense to essential description
Not self-contained	"See Section 3"	Remove cross-references

Security Considerations

Issue	Example	Fix
Empty/trivial	"No security considerations"	Never acceptable; find real issues
Generic	Copy-paste boilerplate	Tailor to specific protocol
Missing threat model	Lists attacks without context	Add threat model section
No mitigations	Identifies risks, no solutions	Add recommended countermeasures

Required Coverage:

• Threat model assumptions
• Authentication/authorization
• Confidentiality/integrity
• Replay protection
• Denial of service
• Privacy implications

IANA Considerations

Issue	Example	Fix
Missing when needed	Defines new registry values	Add IANA section
Wrong registration policy	Uses "First Come First Served" for security-sensitive	Use "Specification Required"
Missing template	New registry without fields	Add registration template
Placeholder not resolved	"TBD" in final draft	Get actual values

References

Issue	Example	Fix
Normative ref to I-D	Blocks on unpublished work	Reconsider dependency
Missing DOI	RFC without DOI	Add DOI
Outdated RFC	Cites obsoleted RFC	Update to current
URL-only reference	External spec by URL only	Add full bibliographic entry

---

Quick Reference: Severity Levels

Severity	Description	Action
BLOCKER	Prevents publication	Must fix before submission
HIGH	Violates IETF requirements	Should fix, may cause IESG review issues
MEDIUM	Style guide violation	Recommended fix
LOW	Editorial suggestion	Optional improvement

---

Reviewer Workflow

1. Read abstract and introduction
   └─> Understand scope and claims

2. Structural scan (Phase 1)
   └─> Verify all required sections present

3. Read Security and IANA sections
   └─> Most common failure points

4. Detailed style review (Phase 2)
   └─> Check RFC 7322 compliance

5. Technical deep-dive (Phase 3)
   └─> Implementability assessment

6. Prior art search (Phase 4)
   └─> Conflict and citation check

7. Publication assessment (Phase 5)
   └─> Stream appropriateness, blockers

8. Generate report
   └─> Use template, prioritize findings

---

References

• RFC 7322: RFC Style Guide
• RFC 7991: xml2rfc v3 Vocabulary
• RFC 8126: Guidelines for IANA Considerations
• RFC 2119 / 8174: Requirements Language
• RFC Editor Publication Process: https://www.rfc-editor.org/pubprocess/
• I-D Guidelines: https://www.ietf.org/standards/ids/guidelines/