Shepherd Write-up for draft-faltstrom-unicode11-05
(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?
Informational. Yes, the header show that status.
(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:
This document describes changes between Unicode 6.3.0 and
Unicode 11.0.0 in the context of IDNA2008, and it requests
that IANA update the tables to Unicode 11.
This document also suggests a path forward for the IETF to
ensure IDNA2008 follows the evolution of the Unicode Standard.
Working Group Summary:
This document is not the product of any IETF WG.
Document Quality:
The Internet Architecture Board issues a statement that
requested IETF to resolve the issues related to the code
point ARABIC LETTER BEH WITH HAMZA ABOVE (U+08A1) that was
introduced in Unicode 7.0.0. This document resolves this
issue and suggests IDNA2008 standard is to follow the
Unicode Standard and not update RFC 5892 or any other
IDNA2008-related RFC.
Personnel:
Russ Housley is the document shepherd.
Alexey Melnikov 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.
The document shepherd did a thorough review of the document.
Several people with IDNA2008 "clue" have assisted with the
document; they are listed in the Acknowledgements section.
Of course, IETF Last Call is needed.
(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or
breadth of the reviews that have been performed?
No concerns.
(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.
Several people with IDNA2008 "clue" have assisted with the
document; they are listed in the Acknowledgements section.
(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 interested community has discussed
those issues and has indicated that it still wishes to advance the
document, detail those concerns here.
No concerns.
(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.
The author has explicitly stated that he is unaware of any IPR
related to this document.
(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If
so, summarize any discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR
disclosures.
No IPR disclosures have been submitted for this Internet-Draft.
(9) How solid is the consensus of the interested community behind this
document? 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?
The Internet Architecture Board issues a statement that
requested IETF to resolve the issues related to the code
point ARABIC LETTER BEH WITH HAMZA ABOVE (U+08A1) that was
introduced in Unicode 7.0.0. This document resolves this
issue and suggests IDNA2008 standard is to follow the
Unicode Standard and not update RFC 5892 or any other
IDNA2008-related RFC.
(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 one has threatened an appeal.
(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.
IDnits raises two minor things:
** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 3491 (Obsoleted by RFC 5891)
-- Obsolete informational reference (is this intentional?): RFC 3490
(Obsoleted by RFC 5890, RFC 5891)
These are not mistakes; old versions are referenced to provide
context.
(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria,
such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.
None needed.
(13) Have all references within this document been identified as either
normative or informative?
Yes, the references are divided into normative and informative.
(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?
None.
(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 references.
(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
interested community considers it unnecessary.
No status changes are requested by this document.
(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).
IANA is requested to update the registry of derived property values
after validation with the Appointed Expert that the derived property
values are calculated correctly. See the appendices in the document.
(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.
The author of the document is the IANA Expert of the registry
in question.
(19) Describe reviews and automated checks performed by to validate
sections of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code,
BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc.
The document does not make use of a formal language such as
ABNF, XML, or ASN.1.