Mailing Lists and Non-ASCII Addresses
draft-ietf-eai-mailinglistbis-05

[Ballot comment]
Just one minor comment. in section 2. "Scenarios Involving Mailing Lists"


  Generally (and exclusively within the scope of this document), an
  original message is sent to a mailing list as a completely separate
  and independent transaction from the list agent sending the
  retransmitted message to one or more list recipients.  In both cases,
  the message might be addressed only to the list address,

Not sure what "in both cases" refer to?

IANA has reviewed draft-ietf-eai-mailinglistbis-05, which is currently in Last Call, and has the following comments:

IANA understands that, upon approval of this document, there are no
IANA Actions that need completion.

The following Last Call announcement was sent out:

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC:
Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Last Call:  (Mailing Lists and non-ASCII Addresses) to Informational RFC


The IESG has received a request from the Email Address
Internationalization WG (eai) to consider the following document:
- 'Mailing Lists and non-ASCII Addresses'
  as Informational RFC

The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the
ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2012-08-29. Exceptionally, comments may be
sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the
beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting.

Abstract


  This document describes considerations for mailing lists with the
  introduction of non-ASCII UTF-8 email addresses.  It outlines some
  possible scenarios for handling lists with mixtures of non-ASCII and
  traditional addresses, but does not specify protocol changes or offer
  implementation or deployment advice.

  *NOTE TO REVIEWERS: Missing or odd-looking references between
  sections are due to bugs in xml2rfc.  The XML is OK, and the HTML
  output looks reasonable.*




The file can be obtained via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-eai-mailinglistbis/

IESG discussion can be tracked via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-eai-mailinglistbis/ballot/


No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D.

(1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard,
Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)?  Why
is this the proper type of RFC?  Is this type of RFC indicated in the
title page header?

This document, titled 'Mailing Lists and UTF-8 Addresses' (draft-ietf-eai-mailinglistbis-05), is requested as Informational RFC. 

This document does not specify any protocol, and describes issues, scenarios, and considerations of managing mailing list with internationalized
email address.  Since the internationalized email address standard is new, not widely deployed, Informational RFC is the better type than BCP.

The type of RFC is indicated in the title page header.


(2) 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.

  The abstract is satisfactory.  It reads:
  This document describes considerations for mailing lists with the
  introduction of internationalized email addresses.  It outlines some
  possible scenarios for handling lists with mixtures of
  internationalized and traditional addresses, but does not offer
  implementation or deployment advice.



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 were neither controversial nor tough decisions made
  in developing this draft.


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 does not specify a protocol.  Instead, it outlines issues in the interactions between mailing lists and the protocols developed under the EAI effort.  Protocol development work may be appropriate as experience with SMTPUTF8 systems and messages accumulates.  Also, once work on internationalized versions of URIs becomes completely stable, it may be appropriate to revisit such specifications as RFC 2369 and RFC 2919 and update them if appropriate.  That work is not part of the present EAI Charter and the WG does to propose to add it.

  In addition to several reviews of the core content of the document, Martin Duerst reviewed the draft thoroughly providing insights from the URI and developing IRI perspective.

Personnel

  Who is the Document Shepherd? Who is the Responsible Area
  Director?

  Joseph Yee is the Document Shepherd for this document.
  Pete Resnick is the Responsible Area Director.


(3) Briefly describe the review of this document that was performed by
the Document Shepherd.  If this version of the document is not ready
for publication, please explain why the document is being forwarded to
the IESG.

I personally reviewed this document and observed discussions in WG mailing list regarding this document.  More importantly, I believed that this version of the document is ready for publication.


(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or
breadth of the reviews that have been performed? 

No, I do not have any concerns about the depth or breath of the reviews performed.  This document is an exploration of issues with SMTPUTF8 messages and mailing lists.  It does not provide a protocol specification and hence does not involve the same issues for for review of interactions with other work, IPR, protocol details, security considerations, etc., that apply to such protocol specs.


(5) Do portions of the document need review from a particular or from
broader perspective, e.g., security, operational complexity, AAA, DNS,
DHCP, XML, or internationalization? If so, describe the review that
took place.

No.


(6) Describe any specific concerns or issues that the Document Shepherd
has 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.

No.

(7) Has each author confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR
disclosures required for full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78
and BCP 79 have already been filed. If not, explain why.

No specific IPR issues are known that apply to this specification.  See the note (4).


(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document?
If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR
disclosures.

Does not apply.  See (4) and (7).


(9) 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? 

Several key members committed to get the draft in good quality.  Some are silent but no one expressed any concern or disagreement publicly or privately.


(10) 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 publicly available.)

No.  See (9).


(11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this
document. (See http://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts
Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be
thorough.

I ran the ID nit tool against the document and there is no errors nor issues reported.


(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review
criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.

There are no new nor update to MIB, media type, and URI in this document, hence no need of formal review.


(13) Have all references within this document been identified as
either normative or informative?

Yes, the document splits its references into normative and informative.  Authors and WG members reviewed and evaluated references and its categorization.

(14) 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 plan for their completion?

There are no normative references in unclear state or not ready for advancement.


(15) Are there downward normative references references (see RFC 3967)?
If so, list these downward references to support the Area Director in the
Last Call procedure.

There are no downward normative references in this document.


(16) Will publication of this document change the status of any
existing RFCs? Are those RFCs listed on the title page header, listed
in the abstract, and discussed in the introduction? If the RFCs are not
listed in the Abstract and Introduction, explain why, and point to the
part of the document where the relationship of this document to the
other RFCs is discussed. If this information is not in the document,
explain why the WG considers it unnecessary.

The publication of this document does not change status of any existing RFCs.


(17) 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 protocol extensions that the document makes
are associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries.
Confirm that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly
identified. Confirm that newly created IANA registries include a
detailed specification of the initial contents for the registry, that
allocations procedures for future registrations are defined, and a
reasonable name for the new registry has been suggested (see RFC 5226).

This draft does not specify a protocol, nor does it create or update IANA registries.


(18) List any new IANA registries that require Expert Review for future
allocations. Provide any public guidance that the IESG would find
useful in selecting the IANA Experts for these new registries.

None.  See (17).


(19) Describe reviews and automated checks performed by the Document
Shepherd to validate sections of the document written in a formal
language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc.

This document does not have any XML code, BNF rules, nor MIB definitions to verify.