Shepherd writeup
draft-ietf-calext-jscalendar-32

As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document 
Shepherd Write-Up.

Changes are expected over time. This version is dated 24 February 2012.

(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 RFC type is standard track. This is is appropriated track as it defines 
format that guarantees interoperability between systems. It is mentioned
 in the title 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 summary is as follows:

This specification defines a data model and JSON representation of
calendar data that can be used for storage and data exchange in a
calendaring and scheduling environment.  It aims to be an alternative,
and over time successor to, the widely deployed iCalendar data format
and to be unambiguous, extendable and simple to process.  In contrast to
the JSON-based jCal format, it is not a direct mapping from iCalendar
and expands semantics where appropriate.


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 no controversy. Though the draft is defining an important
change for calendar objects. The document did not raise any opposition.
In addition, this document undergo a significant number of reviews, and
lots of discussions happened at the IETF as well as during Calconnect
meetings. Calconnect discussions have been reported by the co-authors as
well as during interim meetings organized during Calconnect sessions. 


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?

There are a number of implementations.  FastMail, has multiple
implementations that works for beta users. This includes a perl
implementation. The open-source Cyrus IMAP project includes a C
implementation to translate from and to iCalendar. I suspect other
implementations are developped and deployed including 

Personnel

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

Daniel Migault is the document shepherd and Barry Leiba is the
responsible AD. 

(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 has reviewed the document. The document had many
reviews, and I am confident the document is ready. 

(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, we had discussions about having JSON expert to review the document,
but so far have not had this review. Though this is always good to have an 
additional review, I do not see this as a blocking point given the number 
of reviews. 

(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.

I do not have specific 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.

Robert Stepanek and Neil Jenkins has confirmed on the mailing list 
that they are not aware of any IPR.  

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

(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?   

The WG consensus is strong.

(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. 

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

Nits do not raise errors. warning are not of concerns and references are 
not missing. 

idnits 2.16.02 

/tmp/draft-ietf-calext-jscalendar-23.txt:

  Checking boilerplate required by RFC 5378 and the IETF Trust (see
  https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info):
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

     No issues found here.

  Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/1id-guidelines.txt:
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

     No issues found here.

  Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist :
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

     No issues found here.

  Miscellaneous warnings:
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

     No issues found here.

  Checking references for intended status: Proposed Standard
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

     (See RFCs 3967 and 4897 for information about using normative references
     to lower-maturity documents in RFCs)

  == Missing Reference: 'Alert' is mentioned on line 2736, but not defined

  == Missing Reference: 'Boolean' is mentioned on line 2952, but not defined

  == Missing Reference: 'Link' is mentioned on line 2863, but not defined

  == Missing Reference: 'PatchObject' is mentioned on line 2927, but not
     defined

  == Missing Reference: 'Location' is mentioned on line 2877, but not defined

  == Missing Reference: 'Participant' is mentioned on line 2899, but not
     defined

  == Missing Reference: 'Relation' is mentioned on line 2936, but not defined

  == Missing Reference: 'String' is mentioned on line 2967, but not defined

  == Missing Reference: 'TimeZone' is mentioned on line 2998, but not defined

  == Missing Reference: 'VirtualLocation' is mentioned on line 3026, but not
     defined


     Summary: 0 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 10 warnings (==), 0 comments (--).

     Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about
     the items above.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

We sent th edocument for an IANA review.

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

References are normatives or informational. Some references are referred
as URIs. Maybe the RFC editor will move them to 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?

(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 8126).

Daniel Migault reviewed the IANA section. We worked with respective AD
and IANA, to understand how to complete the IANA section. I confirm that
registries are appropriately created. 

I confirm newly created IANA registries include a detailed specification
of the initial contents for the registry, that allocations procedures
for future registrations are defined

I confirm reasonable name for the new registry has been suggested 

The only point raised by IANA was to confirm allowing for 1 sentence
to be enough for "Specification Required". This needs to be confirmed. 

"""
   This registry follows the Expert Review process ([RFC8126],
   Section 4.5) unless the "intended use" field is "common", in which
   case registration follows the Specification Required process
   ([RFC8126], Section 4.6).  Preliminary community review for this
   registry is optional but strongly encouraged.
"""



(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 asks fro the creation of registries, so there are no expert
review expected upon the media type. 

(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.

None
Back