Shepherd writeup
draft-ietf-calext-valarm-extensions-03

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 1 November 2019.

(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 type of RFC is standard track. This is appropriated as it is required for interoperability. Actually the purpose of the document is to improve the interoperability of an existing extension. 

This is indicate 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. 

   This document defines a set of extensions to the iCalendar VALARM
   component to enhance use of alarms and improve interoperability
   between clients and servers.


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? 

Nothing to be noted the document got few reviews on the list, but the specification benefits from existing deployments and discussion internal at calconnect as well as during the join ietf/ calconnect meetings. 

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, YANG 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? 

The document came as pretty mature and only minor comments have been provided on the mailing list. The extension seems to benefit from experiences of it being deployed and the authors are well representative of that experience as well as th eability for the extension to provide interoprability. 
The extension has also been discussed on joint calconnect/IETF meetings. 

I have not special concerns of the document. 

Personnel:

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

Daniel Migault is the document shepherd Barry Leiba is the 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 review carefully the document checked ABNF description with tools. I believe the document is ready. 

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

I have 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. 

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 concerns were raised. 

(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?

Authors confirmed there 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? 

Good consensus. 

(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 http://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be thorough. 

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

  == The document seems to lack the recommended RFC 2119 boilerplate, even if
     it appears to use RFC 2119 keywords -- however, there's a paragraph with
     a matching beginning. Boilerplate error?

2119 boiler plate is present in the document 

     (The document does seem to have the reference to RFC 2119 which the
     ID-Checklist requires).

The reference is present in the document

     (Using the creation date from RFC5545, updated by this document, for
     RFC5378 checks: 2008-10-31)

  -- The document seems to lack a disclaimer for pre-RFC5378 work, but may
     have content which was first submitted before 10 November 2008.  If you
     have contacted all the original authors and they are all willing to grant
     the BCP78 rights to the IETF Trust, then this is fine, and you can ignore
     this comment.  If not, you may need to add the pre-RFC5378 disclaimer. 
     (See the Legal Provisions document at
     https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info for more information.)

No text is copied from 5545. 

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

This does not apply here. 

(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. 

The document updates 5545. It is mentioned in the header, in the abstract and discussed in the introduction.

(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). 

The document adds:
* 2 Calendar properties
* iCalendar relationship type
* iCalendar registry for values of the "PROXIMITY" property:

The addition of a property is described in section 8.2.3 of rfc 5545. The template is are provided in section 6.1 (acknowledged) and 8.1 (proximity).
The IANA registry is describe din section 8.3.2. of rfc 5545 and the IANA section of the current document is in line with that function. 

The addition of a type is described in rfc 5545 section 8.3.8. The templates are defined in section 7.1 of the document. The relationship type registry is described in section 8.3.8 of rfc 5545. The IANA section is in line with the description of that registry. 

The template for proximity properties is provided in section 8.2.6 of rfc 5545. The template for the proximity values is described in section 8.1. The IANA section has a registry that follows other 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. 

Following the procedure described in rfc 5545 section 8.2.1 the to icalendar@ietf.org and iana@iana.org for an expert review. 

(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, YANG modules, etc.

ABNF has been checked though some errors has been raised mostly has some variables  were unknown. In other words the model was not self contained.

(20) If the document contains a YANG module, has the module been checked with any of the recommended validation tools (https://trac.ietf.org/trac/ops/wiki/yang-review-tools) for syntax and formatting validation? If there are any resulting errors or warnings, what is the justification for not fixing them at this time? Does the YANG module comply with the Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA) as specified in RFC8342?

Back