vCard Format Extension for JSContact
draft-ietf-calext-vcard-jscontact-extensions-12

Received changes through RFC Editor sync (changed state to RFC, created became rfc relationship between draft-ietf-calext-vcard-jscontact-extensions and RFC 9554, changed IESG state to RFC Published)

[Ballot comment]
(Updated ballot for -06)
Thank you for addressing my DISCUSS and COMMENT feedback.

Per the updated abstract text in -06, please remove the reference.  References are not permitted in the abstract.

[Ballot comment]
The working group substate indicates "Document shepherd follow-up underway".  Hopefully that's not still the case.  Also "yes" isn't a great answer to #1 on the shepherd writeup.  And for #11, it's not the case that only standards track documents can specify things for interoperability.

In Section 2.1, an example using TYPE would be helpful.

The SHOULD in Section 2.3 could use some support.  What's a legitimate reason not to do what it says?  If there isn't one, should it be a MUST?

Same question about the SHOULD in Section 2.6.

[Ballot comment]
Thanks for working on this specification. I didn't find any transport protocol related issue :-).

However, I started to wonder about one thing - what would happen when JScontact get extended, would that mean vcard would also need to be extended to "align the same set of features". what is the deal here and how long we should do the alignment?

[Ballot comment]
# GEN AD review of draft-ietf-calext-vcard-jscontact-extensions-05

CC @larseggert

## Comments

### Missing "Updates" explanation

This document updates RFC6350, but does not seem to include explanatory text
about this in the abstract.

### Section 2.6, paragraph 11
```
    Example(s):
        SOCIALPROFILE;SERVICE-TYPE=Twitter:https://twitter.com/ietf
        SOCIALPROFILE:https://github.com/github
        SOCIALPROFILE;SERVICE-TYPE=SomeSite;VALUE=TEXT:peter94
```
Please use example domains here.

### Section 3.7, paragraph 6
```
    Example(s):
        SOCIALPROFILE;SERVICE-TYPE=Twitter:https://twitter.com/ietf
```
Please use an example domain here.

### Uncited references

Document updates `RFC6350`, but does not cite it as a reference, which is a bit
odd.

## Nits

All comments below are about very minor potential issues that you may choose to
address in some way - or ignore - as you see fit. Some were flagged by
automated tools (via https://github.com/larseggert/ietf-reviewtool), so there
will likely be some false positives. There is no need to let me know what you
did with these suggestions.

### Outdated references

Document references `draft-ietf-calext-jscontact-08`, but `-09` is the latest
available revision.

Document references `draft-ietf-calext-jscontact-vcard-06`, but `-07` is the
latest available revision.

### Grammar/style

#### Section 2.5, paragraph 3
```
ty with URI values, it also allows to set usernames for social media service
                                  ^^^^^^
```
Did you mean "setting"? Or maybe you should add a pronoun? In active voice,
"allow" + "to" takes an object, usually a pronoun.

#### Section 2.5, paragraph 9
```
, the AUTHOR-NAME parameter allows to name an author as free-text value (see
                                  ^^^^^^^
```
Did you mean "naming"? Or maybe you should add a pronoun? In active voice,
"allow" + "to" takes an object, usually a pronoun.

#### Section 2.6, paragraph 6
```
ter, the AUTHOR parameter allows to identify an author by URI (see Section 3
                                ^^^^^^^^^^^
```
Did you mean "identifying"? Or maybe you should add a pronoun? In active voice,
"allow" + "to" takes an object, usually a pronoun.

#### Section 2.6, paragraph 11
```
ange resembles an update or rather a delete and create. Format definition: cr
                                  ^^^^^^^^
```
After "a", the verb "delete" doesn't fit. Is "delete" spelled correctly? If
"delete" is the first word in a compound adjective, use a hyphen between the
two words. Using the verb "delete" as a noun may be non-standard.

#### Section 3.2, paragraph 3
```
Description: The RANKS parameter on a N property assigns a rank among the sa
                                    ^
```
Use "an" instead of "a" if the following word starts with a vowel sound, e.g.
"an article", "an hour".

#### Section 3.2, paragraph 3
```
ong the same-typed name components of a N property value. Some cultures assi
                                      ^
```
Use "an" instead of "a" if the following word starts with a vowel sound, e.g.
"an article", "an hour".

#### Section 3.2, paragraph 3
```
e N property value does not allow to infer a culturally or otherwise signifi
                                  ^^^^^^^^
```
Did you mean "inferring"? Or maybe you should add a pronoun? In active voice,
"allow" + "to" takes an object, usually a pronoun.

#### Section 3.2, paragraph 4
```
structurally equivalent to the multi-valued N property value: ranks of diff
                                ^^^^^^^^^^^^
```
This word is normally spelled as one.

#### Section 3.2, paragraph 5
```
component types are separated by semi-colon, ranks among the same name compo
                                ^^^^^^^^^^
```
This word is normally spelled as one.

## Notes

This review is in the ["IETF Comments" Markdown format][ICMF], You can use the
[`ietf-comments` tool][ICT] to automatically convert this review into
individual GitHub issues. Review generated by the [`ietf-reviewtool`][IRT].

[ICMF]: https://github.com/mnot/ietf-comments/blob/main/format.md
[ICT]: https://github.com/mnot/ietf-comments
[IRT]: https://github.com/larseggert/ietf-reviewtool

[Ballot comment]
Hi,

Not flagging this as a discuss because I've not checked closely enough that these are actual mistakes, but there were a couple of instances of the formal definition which were surprising to me:

Moderate level comments:

(1) p 8, sec 2.6.  SOCIALPROFILE Property

      socialpr-param = "VALUE=uri" / "VALUE=text" /
                      service-type-param / any-param

Is the text case insensitive?  I note that you ahve "VALUE=text" in the ABNF above, but "VALUE=TEXT" is the example below.


(2) p 12, sec 3.7.  SERVICE-TYPE Parameter

  Format definition:
      service-type-param    = param-value

Is this format definition right (or otherwise, I'm not sure I understand the examples here and in 2.6)?  Shouldn't it include "SERVICE-TYPE" "=" param-value?


Regards,
Rob

[Ballot discuss]
2.1. CONTACT-CHANNEL-PREF

In JSContact, the preference value cannot be 0, but here this
is not specified as a limitation. This would make converting
a value of 0 problematic. Can this property be defined to be
a preference of 1 or higher ?


The example in Section 2.6 looks odd:

SOCIALPROFILE:https://github.com/github

Perhaps it would be better to use https://github.com/ietf

Note also that with respect to Social Media Services in JSContact there is
case sensitivity (eg Twitter is not twitter), which here is not mentioned.
This could lead to conversion issues.

[Ballot discuss]
Please let me know if I’m not parsing the ABNF correctly:

** Section 2.1 and 2.3.  Where is “x-value” defined?  RFC6350 has an “x-name”.

** Section 2.3.
      gram-gender-value = "animate" /
                          "common" /
                          "feminine" /
                          "inanimate" /
                          "masculine" /
                          "neuter" /
                          iana-token
                          x-value

Trivial typo.  Shouldn’t there should be a “/” between iana-token and x-value?

[Ballot comment]
** idnits returned the following actionable feedback:
  -- The draft header indicates that this document updates RFC6350, but the
    abstract doesn't seem to mention this, which it should.

  -- 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.)

** Section 2.5.

Multiple occurrences of this property MAY define
      pronouns for multiple languages, preferences and contexts.

If there are multiple occurrences, should there be any guidance on making them unique in some way (e.g., requiring difference languages with with prefs)?  For example, would the following be acceptable (i.e., same language, no preference order):

PRONOUNS;LANG=en:they/them
PRONOUNS;LANG=en:she/her

** Section 3.1.

      author-param    = "AUTHOR" "=" DQUOTE 1*QSAFE-CHAR DQUOTE

Other parameters in RFC6350 (e.g., GEO in Section 5.10 and TZ in Section 5.11) seem to define URIs as “DQUOTE URI DQUOTE”.  Why not use that there?

** Section 3.5

      The rank is an integer number larger than
      or equal to 1 and indicates the first or nth rank.  Its location
      within the RANKS parameter value ranks the name component value at
      that same position within the N property value.  An empty or
      absent rank indicates that the rank of its related name component
      value is undefined.

...
N;RANKS=",1;,1":Hamilton,Cartland;Mary,Barbara;;Dame;
                  ; The writer Dame Mary Barbara Hamilton Cartland
                  ; published as "Barbara Cartland"

Can clearer guidance please be provided on how to parse the parameter when a blank rank is provided in a sequence of ranks (i.e., “, 1;”).  Is this the right way to read the example: with “Hamilton, Cartland”, the “Hamilton” (“1”) should be the second rank and everything else (“Cartland”, 2) should come first?

(Via drafts-lastcall@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

The IANA Functions Operator has completed its review of draft-ietf-calext-vcard-jscontact-extensions-04. If any part of this review is inaccurate, please let us know.

The IANA Functions Operator understands that, upon approval of this document, there are three actions which we must complete.

First, in the vCard Properties registry on the vCard Elements registry page located at:

https://www.iana.org/assignments/vcard-elements/

six new registrations will be made as follows:

Namespace Property Reference
---------------+----------------------+-------------------------
CONTACT-CHANNEL-PREF [ RFC-to-be; Section 2.1 ]
CREATED [ RFC-to-be; Section 2.2 ]
GRAMMATICAL-GENDER [ RFC-to-be; Section 2.3 ]
LOCALE [ RFC-to-be; Section 2.4 ]
PRONOUNS [ RFC-to-be; Section 2.5 ]
SOCIALPROFILE [ RFC-to-be; Section 2.6 ]

As this document requests registrations in an Expert Review or Specification Required (see RFC 8126) registry, we will initiate the required Expert Review via a separate request. This review must be completed before the document's IANA state can be changed to "IANA OK."

Second, in the vCard Parameters registry also on the vCard Elements registry page located at:

https://www.iana.org/assignments/vcard-elements/

seven new registrations will be made as follows:

Namespace Parameter Reference
---------+------------+------------------------
AUTHOR [ RFC-to-be; Section 3.1 ]
AUTHOR-NAME [ RFC-to-be; Section 3.2 ]
CREATED [ RFC-to-be; Section 3.3 ]
DERIVED [ RFC-to-be; Section 3.4 ]
PROP-ID [ RFC-to-be; Section 3.6 ]
RANKS [ RFC-to-be; Section 3.5 ]
SERVICE-TYPE [ RFC-to-be; Section 3.7 ]

As this also requests registrations in an Expert Review or Specification Required (see RFC 8126) registry, we will initiate the required Expert Review via a separate request. This review must be completed before the document's IANA state can be changed to "IANA OK."

Third, in the vCard Property Values registry also on the vCard Elements registry page located at:

https://www.iana.org/assignments/vcard-elements/

six new registrations will be made as follows:

Property Value Reference
-------------------+-----------+---------------------------
GRAMMATICAL-GENDER animate [ RFC-to-be; Section 2.3 ]
GRAMMATICAL-GENDER common [ RFC-to-be; Section 2.3 ]
GRAMMATICAL-GENDER feminine [ RFC-to-be; Section 2.3 ]
GRAMMATICAL-GENDER inanimate [ RFC-to-be; Section 2.3 ]
GRAMMATICAL-GENDER masculine [ RFC-to-be; Section 2.3 ]
GRAMMATICAL-GENDER neuter [ RFC-to-be; Section 2.3 ]

As this also requests registrations in an Expert Review or Specification Required (see RFC 8126) registry, we will initiate the required Expert Review via a separate request. This review must be completed before the document's IANA state can be changed to "IANA OK."

The IANA Functions Operator understands that these are the only actions required to be completed upon approval of this document.

Note:  The actions requested in this document will not be completed until the document has been approved for publication as an RFC. This message is meant only to confirm the list of actions that will be performed.

For definitions of IANA review states, please see:

https://datatracker.ietf.org/help/state/draft/iana-review

Thank you,

David Dong
IANA Services Specialist

The following Last Call announcement was sent out (ends 2023-04-07):

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC: calext-chairs@ietf.org, calsify@ietf.org, draft-ietf-calext-vcard-jscontact-extensions@ietf.org, francesca.palombini@ericsson.com, mglt.ietf@gmail.com
Reply-To: last-call@ietf.org
Sender:
Subject: Last Call:  (vCard Format Extension for JSContact) to Proposed Standard


The IESG has received a request from the Calendaring Extensions WG (calext)
to consider the following document: - 'vCard Format Extension for JSContact'
  as 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
last-call@ietf.org mailing lists by 2023-04-07. 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 defines a set of new properties for vCard and extends
  the use of existing ones.  Their primary purpose is to align the same
  set of features between the JSContact and vCard formats, but the new
  definitions also aim to be useful within just the vCard format.




The file can be obtained via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-calext-vcard-jscontact-extensions/



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

# Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents

*This version is dated 4 July 2022.*

Thank you for your service as a document shepherd. Among the responsibilities is
answering the questions in this write-up to give helpful context to Last Call
and Internet Engineering Steering Group ([IESG][1]) reviewers, and your
diligence in completing it is appreciated. The full role of the shepherd is
further described in [RFC 4858][2]. You will need the cooperation of the authors
and editors to complete these checks.

Note that some numbered items contain multiple related questions; please be sure
to answer all of them.

## Document History

1. Does the working group (WG) consensus represent the strong concurrence of a
  few individuals, with others being silent, or did it reach broad agreement?
yes
2. Was there controversy about particular points, or were there decisions where
  the consensus was particularly rough?
no
3. Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If
  so, please summarize 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
4. For protocol documents, are there existing implementations of the contents of
  the document? Have a significant number of potential implementers indicated
  plans to implement? Are any existing implementations reported somewhere,
  either in the document itself (as [RFC 7942][3] recommends) or elsewhere
  (where)?
Fastmail has an implementation and I believe Mario does as well. 
Mike Douglass probably has also done an implementation in Bedework.

## Additional Reviews

5. Do the contents of this document closely interact with technologies in other
  IETF working groups or external organizations, and would it therefore benefit
  from their review? Have those reviews occurred? If yes, describe which
  reviews took place.
no
6. Describe how the document meets any required formal expert review criteria,
  such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.
N/A
7. If the document contains a YANG module, has the final version of the module
  been checked with any of the [recommended validation tools][4] 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 [RFC 8342][5]?
no
8. Describe reviews and automated checks performed to validate sections of the
  final version of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code,
  BNF rules, MIB definitions, CBOR's CDDL, etc.

We carefully reviewed the ABNF scripts, but did not check them with the standard tool since it would require major rewrite of the scripts to fit the tool - reordering of  the lines as well as adding all variables. The tool reported expected errors, so we do not expect major issues. I am checking with the authors if there are any other ways to ensure the ABNF scripts are correct - like an implementation.

## Document Shepherd Checks

9. Based on the shepherd's review of the document, is it their opinion that this
  document is needed, clearly written, complete, correctly designed, and ready
  to be handed off to the responsible Area Director?
yes

10. Several IETF Areas have assembled [lists of common issues that their
    reviewers encounter][6]. For which areas have such issues been identified
    and addressed? For which does this still need to happen in subsequent
    reviews?
N/A
11. What type of RFC publication is being requested on the IETF stream ([Best
    Current Practice][12], [Proposed Standard, Internet Standard][13],
    [Informational, Experimental or Historic][14])? Why is this the proper type
    of RFC? Do all Datatracker state attributes correctly reflect this intent?
Standard track is appropriated for interoperability.
12. Have reasonable efforts been made to remind all authors of the intellectual
    property rights (IPR) disclosure obligations described in [BCP 79][7]? To
    the best of your knowledge, have all required disclosures been filed? If
    not, explain why. If yes, summarize any relevant discussion, including links
    to publicly-available messages when applicable.

Authors confirm they are not aware of any IPR.

13. Has each author, editor, and contributor shown their willingness to be
    listed as such? If the total number of authors and editors on the front page
    is greater than five, please provide a justification.
Authors confirm they are willing to be author.

14. Document any remaining I-D nits in this document. Simply running the [idnits
    tool][8] is not enough; please review the ["Content Guidelines" on
    authors.ietf.org][15]. (Also note that the current idnits tool generates
    some incorrect warnings; a rewrite is underway.)
id nits does not raise any error. I have not found anything that seemed to raise any issue.

15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the [IESG
    Statement on Normative and Informative References][16].
No
16. List any normative references that are not freely available to anyone. Did
    the community have sufficient access to review any such normative
    references?
N/A
17. Are there any normative downward references (see [RFC 3967][9] and [BCP
    97][10]) that are not already listed in the [DOWNREF registry][17]? If so,
    list them.
No
18. Are there normative references to documents that are not ready to be
    submitted to the IESG for publication or are otherwise in an unclear state?
    If so, what is the plan for their completion?
No
19. Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? If
    so, does the Datatracker metadata correctly reflect this and are those RFCs
    listed on the title page, in the abstract, and discussed in the
    introduction? If not, explain why and point to the part of the document
    where the relationship of this document to these other RFCs is discussed.
No
20. 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 aspects of the document requiring IANA assignments are
    associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm
    that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm
    that each newly created IANA registry specifies its initial contents,
    allocations procedures, and a reasonable name (see [RFC 8126][11]).

IANA section follows RFC6350

21. List any new IANA registries that require Designated Expert Review for
    future allocations. Are the instructions to the Designated Expert clear?
    Please include suggestions of designated experts, if appropriate.
N/A

[1]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/
[2]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4858.html
[3]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7942.html
[4]: https://trac.ietf.org/trac/ops/wiki/yang-review-tools
[5]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8342.html
[6]: https://trac.ietf.org/trac/iesg/wiki/ExpertTopics
[7]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp79
[8]: https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/
[9]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3967.html
[10]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp97
[11]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8126.html
[12]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-5
[13]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.1
[14]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.2
[15]: https://authors.ietf.org/en/content-guidelines-overview
[16]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/normative-informative-references/
[17]: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/downref/

# Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents

*This version is dated 4 July 2022.*

Thank you for your service as a document shepherd. Among the responsibilities is
answering the questions in this write-up to give helpful context to Last Call
and Internet Engineering Steering Group ([IESG][1]) reviewers, and your
diligence in completing it is appreciated. The full role of the shepherd is
further described in [RFC 4858][2]. You will need the cooperation of the authors
and editors to complete these checks.

Note that some numbered items contain multiple related questions; please be sure
to answer all of them.

## Document History

1. Does the working group (WG) consensus represent the strong concurrence of a
  few individuals, with others being silent, or did it reach broad agreement?
yes
2. Was there controversy about particular points, or were there decisions where
  the consensus was particularly rough?
no
3. Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If
  so, please summarize 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
4. For protocol documents, are there existing implementations of the contents of
  the document? Have a significant number of potential implementers indicated
  plans to implement? Are any existing implementations reported somewhere,
  either in the document itself (as [RFC 7942][3] recommends) or elsewhere
  (where)?
vcard has some implementations, jscard has some and the document defines how to have some equivalent attributes for the two formats.

## Additional Reviews

5. Do the contents of this document closely interact with technologies in other
  IETF working groups or external organizations, and would it therefore benefit
  from their review? Have those reviews occurred? If yes, describe which
  reviews took place.
no
6. Describe how the document meets any required formal expert review criteria,
  such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.
N/A
7. If the document contains a YANG module, has the final version of the module
  been checked with any of the [recommended validation tools][4] 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 [RFC 8342][5]?
no
8. Describe reviews and automated checks performed to validate sections of the
  final version of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code,
  BNF rules, MIB definitions, CBOR's CDDL, etc.

We carefully reviewed the ABNF scripts, but did not check them with the standard tool since it would require major rewrite of the scripts to fit the tool - reordering of  the lines as well as adding all variables. The tool reported expected errors, so we do not expect major issues. I am checking with the authors if there are any other ways to ensure the ABNF scripts are correct - like an implementation.

## Document Shepherd Checks

9. Based on the shepherd's review of the document, is it their opinion that this
  document is needed, clearly written, complete, correctly designed, and ready
  to be handed off to the responsible Area Director?
yes

10. Several IETF Areas have assembled [lists of common issues that their
    reviewers encounter][6]. For which areas have such issues been identified
    and addressed? For which does this still need to happen in subsequent
    reviews?
N/A
11. What type of RFC publication is being requested on the IETF stream ([Best
    Current Practice][12], [Proposed Standard, Internet Standard][13],
    [Informational, Experimental or Historic][14])? Why is this the proper type
    of RFC? Do all Datatracker state attributes correctly reflect this intent?
Standard track is appropriated for interoperability.
12. Have reasonable efforts been made to remind all authors of the intellectual
    property rights (IPR) disclosure obligations described in [BCP 79][7]? To
    the best of your knowledge, have all required disclosures been filed? If
    not, explain why. If yes, summarize any relevant discussion, including links
    to publicly-available messages when applicable.

Authors confirm they are not aware of any IPR.

13. Has each author, editor, and contributor shown their willingness to be
    listed as such? If the total number of authors and editors on the front page
    is greater than five, please provide a justification.
XXX waiting for Marco to confirm

14. Document any remaining I-D nits in this document. Simply running the [idnits
    tool][8] is not enough; please review the ["Content Guidelines" on
    authors.ietf.org][15]. (Also note that the current idnits tool generates
    some incorrect warnings; a rewrite is underway.)
id nits does not raise any error. I have not found anything that seemed to raise any issue.

15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the [IESG
    Statement on Normative and Informative References][16].
No
16. List any normative references that are not freely available to anyone. Did
    the community have sufficient access to review any such normative
    references?
N/A
17. Are there any normative downward references (see [RFC 3967][9] and [BCP
    97][10]) that are not already listed in the [DOWNREF registry][17]? If so,
    list them.
No
18. Are there normative references to documents that are not ready to be
    submitted to the IESG for publication or are otherwise in an unclear state?
    If so, what is the plan for their completion?
No
19. Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? If
    so, does the Datatracker metadata correctly reflect this and are those RFCs
    listed on the title page, in the abstract, and discussed in the
    introduction? If not, explain why and point to the part of the document
    where the relationship of this document to these other RFCs is discussed.
No
20. 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 aspects of the document requiring IANA assignments are
    associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm
    that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm
    that each newly created IANA registry specifies its initial contents,
    allocations procedures, and a reasonable name (see [RFC 8126][11]).

IANA section follows RFC6350

21. List any new IANA registries that require Designated Expert Review for
    future allocations. Are the instructions to the Designated Expert clear?
    Please include suggestions of designated experts, if appropriate.
N/A

[1]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/
[2]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4858.html
[3]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7942.html
[4]: https://trac.ietf.org/trac/ops/wiki/yang-review-tools
[5]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8342.html
[6]: https://trac.ietf.org/trac/iesg/wiki/ExpertTopics
[7]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp79
[8]: https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/
[9]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3967.html
[10]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp97
[11]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8126.html
[12]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-5
[13]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.1
[14]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.2
[15]: https://authors.ietf.org/en/content-guidelines-overview
[16]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/normative-informative-references/
[17]: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/downref/

# Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents

*This version is dated 4 July 2022.*

Thank you for your service as a document shepherd. Among the responsibilities is
answering the questions in this write-up to give helpful context to Last Call
and Internet Engineering Steering Group ([IESG][1]) reviewers, and your
diligence in completing it is appreciated. The full role of the shepherd is
further described in [RFC 4858][2]. You will need the cooperation of the authors
and editors to complete these checks.

Note that some numbered items contain multiple related questions; please be sure
to answer all of them.

## Document History

1. Does the working group (WG) consensus represent the strong concurrence of a
  few individuals, with others being silent, or did it reach broad agreement?
yes
2. Was there controversy about particular points, or were there decisions where
  the consensus was particularly rough?
no
3. Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If
  so, please summarize 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
4. For protocol documents, are there existing implementations of the contents of
  the document? Have a significant number of potential implementers indicated
  plans to implement? Are any existing implementations reported somewhere,
  either in the document itself (as [RFC 7942][3] recommends) or elsewhere
  (where)?
vcard has some implementations, jscard has some and the document defines how to have some equivalent attributes for the two formats.

## Additional Reviews

5. Do the contents of this document closely interact with technologies in other
  IETF working groups or external organizations, and would it therefore benefit
  from their review? Have those reviews occurred? If yes, describe which
  reviews took place.
no
6. Describe how the document meets any required formal expert review criteria,
  such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.
N/A
7. If the document contains a YANG module, has the final version of the module
  been checked with any of the [recommended validation tools][4] 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 [RFC 8342][5]?
no
8. Describe reviews and automated checks performed to validate sections of the
  final version of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code,
  BNF rules, MIB definitions, CBOR's CDDL, etc.

We carefully reviewed the ABNF scripts, but did not check them with the standard tool since it would require major rewrite of the scripts to fit the tool - reordering of  the lines as well as adding all variables. The tool reported expected errors, so we do not expect major issues. I am checking with the authors if there are any other ways to ensure the ABNF scripts are correct - like an implementation.

## Document Shepherd Checks

9. Based on the shepherd's review of the document, is it their opinion that this
  document is needed, clearly written, complete, correctly designed, and ready
  to be handed off to the responsible Area Director?
yes

10. Several IETF Areas have assembled [lists of common issues that their
    reviewers encounter][6]. For which areas have such issues been identified
    and addressed? For which does this still need to happen in subsequent
    reviews?
N/A
11. What type of RFC publication is being requested on the IETF stream ([Best
    Current Practice][12], [Proposed Standard, Internet Standard][13],
    [Informational, Experimental or Historic][14])? Why is this the proper type
    of RFC? Do all Datatracker state attributes correctly reflect this intent?
Standard track is appropriated for interoperability.
12. Have reasonable efforts been made to remind all authors of the intellectual
    property rights (IPR) disclosure obligations described in [BCP 79][7]? To
    the best of your knowledge, have all required disclosures been filed? If
    not, explain why. If yes, summarize any relevant discussion, including links
    to publicly-available messages when applicable.

XXX waiting for Marco to confirm

13. Has each author, editor, and contributor shown their willingness to be
    listed as such? If the total number of authors and editors on the front page
    is greater than five, please provide a justification.
XXX waiting for Marco to confirm

14. Document any remaining I-D nits in this document. Simply running the [idnits
    tool][8] is not enough; please review the ["Content Guidelines" on
    authors.ietf.org][15]. (Also note that the current idnits tool generates
    some incorrect warnings; a rewrite is underway.)
id nits does not raise any error. I have not found anything that seemed to raise any issue.

15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the [IESG
    Statement on Normative and Informative References][16].
No
16. List any normative references that are not freely available to anyone. Did
    the community have sufficient access to review any such normative
    references?
N/A
17. Are there any normative downward references (see [RFC 3967][9] and [BCP
    97][10]) that are not already listed in the [DOWNREF registry][17]? If so,
    list them.
No
18. Are there normative references to documents that are not ready to be
    submitted to the IESG for publication or are otherwise in an unclear state?
    If so, what is the plan for their completion?
No
19. Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? If
    so, does the Datatracker metadata correctly reflect this and are those RFCs
    listed on the title page, in the abstract, and discussed in the
    introduction? If not, explain why and point to the part of the document
    where the relationship of this document to these other RFCs is discussed.
No
20. 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 aspects of the document requiring IANA assignments are
    associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm
    that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm
    that each newly created IANA registry specifies its initial contents,
    allocations procedures, and a reasonable name (see [RFC 8126][11]).

IANA section follows RFC6350

21. List any new IANA registries that require Designated Expert Review for
    future allocations. Are the instructions to the Designated Expert clear?
    Please include suggestions of designated experts, if appropriate.
N/A

[1]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/
[2]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4858.html
[3]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7942.html
[4]: https://trac.ietf.org/trac/ops/wiki/yang-review-tools
[5]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8342.html
[6]: https://trac.ietf.org/trac/iesg/wiki/ExpertTopics
[7]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp79
[8]: https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/
[9]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3967.html
[10]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp97
[11]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8126.html
[12]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-5
[13]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.1
[14]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.2
[15]: https://authors.ietf.org/en/content-guidelines-overview
[16]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/normative-informative-references/
[17]: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/downref/

# Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents

*This version is dated 4 July 2022.*

Thank you for your service as a document shepherd. Among the responsibilities is
answering the questions in this write-up to give helpful context to Last Call
and Internet Engineering Steering Group ([IESG][1]) reviewers, and your
diligence in completing it is appreciated. The full role of the shepherd is
further described in [RFC 4858][2]. You will need the cooperation of the authors
and editors to complete these checks.

Note that some numbered items contain multiple related questions; please be sure
to answer all of them.

## Document History

1. Does the working group (WG) consensus represent the strong concurrence of a
  few individuals, with others being silent, or did it reach broad agreement?
yes
2. Was there controversy about particular points, or were there decisions where
  the consensus was particularly rough?
no
3. Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If
  so, please summarize 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
4. For protocol documents, are there existing implementations of the contents of
  the document? Have a significant number of potential implementers indicated
  plans to implement? Are any existing implementations reported somewhere,
  either in the document itself (as [RFC 7942][3] recommends) or elsewhere
  (where)?
vcard has some implementations, jscard has some and the document defines how to have some equivalent attributes for the two formats.

## Additional Reviews

5. Do the contents of this document closely interact with technologies in other
  IETF working groups or external organizations, and would it therefore benefit
  from their review? Have those reviews occurred? If yes, describe which
  reviews took place.
no
6. Describe how the document meets any required formal expert review criteria,
  such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.
N/A
7. If the document contains a YANG module, has the final version of the module
  been checked with any of the [recommended validation tools][4] 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 [RFC 8342][5]?
no
8. Describe reviews and automated checks performed to validate sections of the
  final version of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code,
  BNF rules, MIB definitions, CBOR's CDDL, etc.

We carefully reviewed the ABNF scripts, but did not check them with the standard tool since it would require major rewrite of the scripts to fit the tool - reordering of  the lines as well as adding all variables. The tool reported expected errors, so we do not expect major issues. I am checking with the authors if there are any other ways to ensure the ABNF scripts are correct - like an implementation.

## Document Shepherd Checks

9. Based on the shepherd's review of the document, is it their opinion that this
  document is needed, clearly written, complete, correctly designed, and ready
  to be handed off to the responsible Area Director?
yes

10. Several IETF Areas have assembled [lists of common issues that their
    reviewers encounter][6]. For which areas have such issues been identified
    and addressed? For which does this still need to happen in subsequent
    reviews?
N/A
11. What type of RFC publication is being requested on the IETF stream ([Best
    Current Practice][12], [Proposed Standard, Internet Standard][13],
    [Informational, Experimental or Historic][14])? Why is this the proper type
    of RFC? Do all Datatracker state attributes correctly reflect this intent?
Standard track is appropriated for interoperability.
12. Have reasonable efforts been made to remind all authors of the intellectual
    property rights (IPR) disclosure obligations described in [BCP 79][7]? To
    the best of your knowledge, have all required disclosures been filed? If
    not, explain why. If yes, summarize any relevant discussion, including links
    to publicly-available messages when applicable.

XXX waiting for Marco to confirm

13. Has each author, editor, and contributor shown their willingness to be
    listed as such? If the total number of authors and editors on the front page
    is greater than five, please provide a justification.
XXX waiting for Marco to confirm

14. Document any remaining I-D nits in this document. Simply running the [idnits
    tool][8] is not enough; please review the ["Content Guidelines" on
    authors.ietf.org][15]. (Also note that the current idnits tool generates
    some incorrect warnings; a rewrite is underway.)
id nits does not raise any error. I have not found anything that seemed to raise any issue.

15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the [IESG
    Statement on Normative and Informative References][16].
No
16. List any normative references that are not freely available to anyone. Did
    the community have sufficient access to review any such normative
    references?
N/A
17. Are there any normative downward references (see [RFC 3967][9] and [BCP
    97][10]) that are not already listed in the [DOWNREF registry][17]? If so,
    list them.
No
18. Are there normative references to documents that are not ready to be
    submitted to the IESG for publication or are otherwise in an unclear state?
    If so, what is the plan for their completion?
No
19. Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? If
    so, does the Datatracker metadata correctly reflect this and are those RFCs
    listed on the title page, in the abstract, and discussed in the
    introduction? If not, explain why and point to the part of the document
    where the relationship of this document to these other RFCs is discussed.
No
20. 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 aspects of the document requiring IANA assignments are
    associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm
    that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm
    that each newly created IANA registry specifies its initial contents,
    allocations procedures, and a reasonable name (see [RFC 8126][11]).

IANA section follows RFC6350

21. List any new IANA registries that require Designated Expert Review for
    future allocations. Are the instructions to the Designated Expert clear?
    Please include suggestions of designated experts, if appropriate.
N/A

[1]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/
[2]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4858.html
[3]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7942.html
[4]: https://trac.ietf.org/trac/ops/wiki/yang-review-tools
[5]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8342.html
[6]: https://trac.ietf.org/trac/iesg/wiki/ExpertTopics
[7]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp79
[8]: https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/
[9]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3967.html
[10]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp97
[11]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8126.html
[12]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-5
[13]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.1
[14]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.2
[15]: https://authors.ietf.org/en/content-guidelines-overview
[16]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/normative-informative-references/
[17]: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/downref/

# Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents

*This version is dated 4 July 2022.*

Thank you for your service as a document shepherd. Among the responsibilities is
answering the questions in this write-up to give helpful context to Last Call
and Internet Engineering Steering Group ([IESG][1]) reviewers, and your
diligence in completing it is appreciated. The full role of the shepherd is
further described in [RFC 4858][2]. You will need the cooperation of the authors
and editors to complete these checks.

Note that some numbered items contain multiple related questions; please be sure
to answer all of them.

## Document History

1. Does the working group (WG) consensus represent the strong concurrence of a
  few individuals, with others being silent, or did it reach broad agreement?
yes
2. Was there controversy about particular points, or were there decisions where
  the consensus was particularly rough?
no
3. Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If
  so, please summarize 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
4. For protocol documents, are there existing implementations of the contents of
  the document? Have a significant number of potential implementers indicated
  plans to implement? Are any existing implementations reported somewhere,
  either in the document itself (as [RFC 7942][3] recommends) or elsewhere
  (where)?
vcard has some implementations, jscard has some and the document defines how to have some equivalent attributes for the two formats.

## Additional Reviews

5. Do the contents of this document closely interact with technologies in other
  IETF working groups or external organizations, and would it therefore benefit
  from their review? Have those reviews occurred? If yes, describe which
  reviews took place.
no
6. Describe how the document meets any required formal expert review criteria,
  such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.
N/A
7. If the document contains a YANG module, has the final version of the module
  been checked with any of the [recommended validation tools][4] 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 [RFC 8342][5]?
no
8. Describe reviews and automated checks performed to validate sections of the
  final version of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code,
  BNF rules, MIB definitions, CBOR's CDDL, etc.

## Document Shepherd Checks

9. Based on the shepherd's review of the document, is it their opinion that this
  document is needed, clearly written, complete, correctly designed, and ready
  to be handed off to the responsible Area Director?
yes

10. Several IETF Areas have assembled [lists of common issues that their
    reviewers encounter][6]. For which areas have such issues been identified
    and addressed? For which does this still need to happen in subsequent
    reviews?
N/A
11. What type of RFC publication is being requested on the IETF stream ([Best
    Current Practice][12], [Proposed Standard, Internet Standard][13],
    [Informational, Experimental or Historic][14])? Why is this the proper type
    of RFC? Do all Datatracker state attributes correctly reflect this intent?
Standard track is appropriated for interoperability.
12. Have reasonable efforts been made to remind all authors of the intellectual
    property rights (IPR) disclosure obligations described in [BCP 79][7]? To
    the best of your knowledge, have all required disclosures been filed? If
    not, explain why. If yes, summarize any relevant discussion, including links
    to publicly-available messages when applicable.

XXX waiting for Marco to confirm

13. Has each author, editor, and contributor shown their willingness to be
    listed as such? If the total number of authors and editors on the front page
    is greater than five, please provide a justification.
XXX waiting for Marco to confirm

14. Document any remaining I-D nits in this document. Simply running the [idnits
    tool][8] is not enough; please review the ["Content Guidelines" on
    authors.ietf.org][15]. (Also note that the current idnits tool generates
    some incorrect warnings; a rewrite is underway.)
id nits does not raise any error. I have not found anything that seemed to raise any issue.

15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the [IESG
    Statement on Normative and Informative References][16].
No
16. List any normative references that are not freely available to anyone. Did
    the community have sufficient access to review any such normative
    references?
N/A
17. Are there any normative downward references (see [RFC 3967][9] and [BCP
    97][10]) that are not already listed in the [DOWNREF registry][17]? If so,
    list them.
No
18. Are there normative references to documents that are not ready to be
    submitted to the IESG for publication or are otherwise in an unclear state?
    If so, what is the plan for their completion?
No
19. Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? If
    so, does the Datatracker metadata correctly reflect this and are those RFCs
    listed on the title page, in the abstract, and discussed in the
    introduction? If not, explain why and point to the part of the document
    where the relationship of this document to these other RFCs is discussed.
No
20. 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 aspects of the document requiring IANA assignments are
    associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm
    that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm
    that each newly created IANA registry specifies its initial contents,
    allocations procedures, and a reasonable name (see [RFC 8126][11]).

IANA section follows RFC6350

21. List any new IANA registries that require Designated Expert Review for
    future allocations. Are the instructions to the Designated Expert clear?
    Please include suggestions of designated experts, if appropriate.
N/A

[1]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/
[2]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4858.html
[3]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7942.html
[4]: https://trac.ietf.org/trac/ops/wiki/yang-review-tools
[5]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8342.html
[6]: https://trac.ietf.org/trac/iesg/wiki/ExpertTopics
[7]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp79
[8]: https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/
[9]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3967.html
[10]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp97
[11]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8126.html
[12]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-5
[13]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.1
[14]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.2
[15]: https://authors.ietf.org/en/content-guidelines-overview
[16]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/normative-informative-references/
[17]: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/downref/