Skip to main content

Shepherd writeup
draft-ietf-appsawg-rfc3536bis

PROTO writeup for draft-ietf-appsawg-rfc3536bis-02

The Applications Area Working Group requests the publication of
draft-ietf-appsawg-rfc3536bis-02 as a BCP, obsoleting RFC 3536, which is
Informational.

  (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?

Barry Leiba is the document shepherd.  I have reviewed this version, and am
satisfied that it's ready.

  (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 has adequate review, on the IDNAbis and EAI lists and then on the
apps-discuss list, and I have no concerns.

  (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?

I have no concerns.

  (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.

I have no concerns.  There is no IPR involved.

  (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?

There is consensus of the working group behind it, not just "a few".  That
said, internationalization is a very specialized topic, and the majority of
Applications Area participants are not well versed in it, and have not
commented on 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.)

No.

  (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?

I have verified it with idnits version 2.12.12.  It is fine.

  (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].

All references are properly separated and labelled.  This document, by its
nature, has a number of references to documents from other bodies -- ISO, the
Unicode Consortium, W3C, and ANSI.  Two of those references are normative. 
They were normative in the original document as well, and are updated here:

   [ISOIEC10646]
              ISO/IEC, "ISO/IEC 10646-1:2003. International Standard --
              Information technology - Universal Multiple-Octet Coded
              Character Set (UCS)", 2003.

   [UNICODE]  The Unicode Consortium, "The Unicode Standard, Version
              6.0", Mountain View, CA: The Unicode Consortium,
              2011. ISBN 978-1-936213-01-6)., 2011,
              <http://www.unicode.org/versions/Unicode6.0.0/>.

  (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?

There are no IANA issues with this document, and the IANA Considerations
section says that.

  (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?

There is no formal language in this document.

  (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 provides a glossary of terms used in the IETF when discussing
internationalization.  The purpose is to help frame discussions of
internationalization in the various areas of the IETF and to help introduce the
main concepts to IETF participants.

This document gives an overview of internationalization as it applies to IETF
standards work by lightly covering the many aspects of internationalization and
the vocabulary associated with those topics. Some of the overview is a somewhat
tuturial in nature.  It is not meant to be a complete description of
internationalization.  The definitions in this document are not normative for
IETF standards; however, they are useful and standards may make informative
reference to this document after it becomes an RFC.  Some of the definitions in
this document come from many earlier IETF documents and books.

     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?

Not surprisingly for a document such as this, there were many suggestions of
terminology to include, and of alternative definitions to the ones included. 
The editors have done a good job of striking a necessary balance between an
overly bloated document and one that includes the right set of terms, with
definitions that reflect reasonable consensus, if not always unanimity.  There
were a number of such discussions, with none bearing particular mention here.

     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?

This document replaces RFC 3536, cleaning up and updating many of the
definitions therein.  RFC 3536 has been in use for eight years, and this
document reflects that maturity and what we've learned about the gaps in the
terminology and definitions over that time.  Section 7 is a significant new
section that talks about IDNA work done since RFC 3536.
Back