The Unicode Code Points and Internationalized Domain Names for Applications (IDNA) - Unicode 6.0
draft-faltstrom-5892bis-05

Upon approval of this document, IANA will, in collaboration with its
internal IDN team and IETF IDNA experts, update the derived property
value registry according to RFC 5892 and property values as defined in
The Unicode Standard version 6.0.

IANA understands that this is the only action required of IANA upon
approval of this document.

[Ballot comment]
Unicode 6.0 is mentioned in the text body and included in the reference section, but there are no formal references to the document. (Run the nit-checker and you will see what I mean).

[Ballot discuss]
From the discussion that has followed the Gen-ART Review by
  Roni Even on 29-May-2011 it is clear to me that the IANA
  Considerations need to be clarified.  Different people are
  getting different meanings from the current words.

[Ballot discuss]
From the discussion that has followed the Gen-ART Review by
  Roni Even on 29-May-2011 it is clear to me that the IANA
  Considerations need to be clarified.  Different people are
  getting different meanings from the current words.

[Ballot comment]
Abstract

I don't know what it means to "specify consensus". Suggest...

OLD
  This document specifies IETF consensus
NEW
  This memo documents IETF consensus
END

State changed to In Last Call from Last Call Requested.

The following Last Call Announcement was sent out:

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC:
Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Last Call:  (The Unicode code points and IDNA - Unicode 6.0) to Proposed Standard


The IESG has received a request from the Applications Area Working Group
WG (appsawg) to consider the following document:
- 'The Unicode code points and IDNA - Unicode 6.0'
  as a Proposed Standard

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 2011-06-06. 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 specifies IETF consensus for IDNA derived character
properties related to the three code points, existing in Unicode 5.2,
that changed property values when version 6.0 was released.  The
consensus is that no update is needed to RFC 5892 based on the
changes made in Unicode 6.0.



The file can be obtained via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-faltstrom-5892bis/

IESG discussion can be tracked via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-faltstrom-5892bis/


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

State Change Notice email list has been changed to paf@cisco.com, paul.hoffman@vpnc.org, vint@google.com, alexey.melnikov@isode.com, yaojk@cnnic.cn from paf@cisco.com, paul.hoffman@vpnc.org, vint@google.com, alexey.melnikov@isode.com

(1.a)  Who is the Document Shepherd for this document?

    Paul Hoffman

Has the
Document Shepherd personally reviewed this version of the document
and, in particular,

    Yes.

does he or she believe this version is ready
for forwarding to the IESG for publication?

    Yes.

(1.b)  Has the document had adequate review both from key members of
the interested community and others?

    Yes, it has been heavily reviewed on the idna-update mailing list
    and was announced on the AppsArea WG.

Does the Document Shepherd
have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that
have been performed?

    No.

(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?

    No.

(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 interested community has discussed those issues and has
indicated that it still wishes to advance the document, detail
those concerns here.

    No.

(1.e)  How solid is the consensus of the interested community behind
this document?

    There was widespread agreement on the idna-update mailing list.

Does it represent the strong concurrence of a few
individuals, with others being silent, or does the interested
community as a whole understand and agree with it?

    Reasonably strong by many people, although the IDNA community is
    not as large as it used to be.

(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.)

    Not to my knowledge. Mark Davis didn't like the way the
    acknowledgements were written in an earlier version, but Patrik
    changed those to hopefull reflect his concerns. Note that he is
    not allowed to remove his name without extreme reason to do so,
    given that he really was a contributor.

(1.g)  Has the Document Shepherd personally verified that the
document satisfies all ID nits?  (See
http://www.ietf.org/ID-Checklist.html and
http://tools.ietf.org/tools/idnits/).

    Yes.

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?

    No formal review checks are needed for this document.

(1.h)  Has the document split its references into normative and
informative?

    All references are normative.

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?

    No.

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].

    No.

(1.i)  Has the Document Shepherd verified that the document IANA
consideration section exists and is consistent with the body of
the document?

    Yes.

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 suggested a reasonable name for the new registry?  See
[I-D.narten-iana-considerations-rfc2434bis].  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?

    Not applicable.

(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?

    No formal language.

(1.k)  The IESG approval announcement includes a Document
Announcement Write-Up.  Please provide such a Document
Announcement Writeup?  Recent examples can be found in the
"Action" announcements for approved documents.  The approval
announcement contains the following sections:

Technical Summary

    This document specifies IETF consensus for IDNA derived character
    properties related to the three code points, existing in Unicode
    5.2, that changed property values when version 6.0 was released.

Working Group Summary

    The IDNAbis WG was disbanded last year, but this document was
    discussed on the old mailing list for the WG.

Document Quality

    The document is very short and to-the-point, which is appropriate
    for this topic.