Shepherd writeup
rfc6694-07

(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?
 

The requested RFC is Standards Track (Proposed Standard ).
There are some concerns whether we can register a URI in the Permanent
registry if the document status is Informational. If this is not a problem, this
document can be informational.  On the other hand, Tom Petch pointed out
that if this document is for STD, it should also mention other browsers as
examples instead of Opera only.
 

(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.
 
This document specifies the "about" URI scheme, that is widely used
by Web browsers and some other applications to designate access to
their internal resources.
 

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 was a little controversial discussion about IANA registration policy
in choosing between FCFS and Specification Required.  There were some
who wanted to specify more about-tokens and their details, but consensus
came down to being minimal. This document got the reasonable rough
consensus for FCFS.


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 is in good shape.
There are multiple existing implementations of about: URIs.
 

Personnel
 
  Who is the Document Shepherd? Who is the Responsible Area
  Director?
 
Jiankang Yao is the Document Shepherd.
Barry Leiba will be 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 have reviewed the latest version of the draft,
and I believe that this document is ready to go.
 

(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or
breadth of the reviews that have been performed? 
 
No.
 
(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.
 
Yes.
 

(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document?
If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR
disclosures.
 
No IPR disclosure was filed on this document.
 

(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? 
 
I believe the document has reached rough consensus in the WG.
There has been no dissent in the WGLC.
 
 
(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 threat of appeal was indicated.
 

(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.
 
Yes, I have checked it. No nits are found.
 

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

This document is nothing about MIBs at all. 
This document was posted to the uri-review list and received no
comments, and that the URI expert (Graham Klyne) reviewed and
commented on the document in the working group.
 
 
 
(13) Have all references within this document been identified as
either normative or informative?
 
Yes.
 
(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?
 
No.
 
(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.
 
No.
 
(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.
 
No.
 
(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 Considerations section is clear and specifies the correct registries.
IANA is asked to register the "about" URI scheme in the "URI Schemes" registry;
IANA is asked to set up a new registry entitled "'about' URI Special Purpose Tokens" .
The registration policy chosen, First Come First Served, is appropriate.
 

(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 document creates a new registry for "'about'
URI Special Purpose Tokens", but its registration policy is FCFS, and
does not need an Expert Reviewer.

The registry is defined as a table and a registration template.  The responsible
AD has checked with IANA, and they will decide on the presentation of the
registry, working with the authors and AD as needed.
 
(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.
 
Validation is correct.
Back