Skip to main content

Shepherd writeup
rfc8255-14

Document Writeup for draft-ietf-slim-multilangcontent-08

Document Shepherd: Bernard Aboba (bernard.aboba@gmail.com)

(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?

It is requested that this document be published as a Proposed Standard. The
header indicates that Standards Track publication is desired. This document
needs to be on the Standards Track since a standard way to handle multiple
language content is needed to ensure interoperability.

(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:

   The objective of this document is to define an addition to the
   Multipurpose Internet Mail Extensions (MIME) standard, to make it
   possible to send a single message to a group of people in such a way
   that all of the recipients can read the email in their preferred
   language.

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?

This document has been non-controversial.

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 no known implementations.

Personnel:

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

Bernard Aboba (SLIM WG co-chair) is the Document Shepherd.  The responsible
area director is Alexey Melnikov (ART 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 SLIM WG co-chairs (Bernard Aboba and Natasha Rooney) have reviewed the
document. We believe it is ready for publication.

(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.

Individuals knowledgeable about email and language negotiation have reviewed
the document.

(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 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?

Yes.  Confirmations:
Nathaniel Borenstein:
https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/slim/current/msg00963.html Nik Tomkinson:
https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/slim/current/msg00962.html

(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 disclosures have been filed.

(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?

WG consensus represented the concurrence of those WG participants who weighed
in on it (4-5).

(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 appeals have been threatened.

(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.

Below is the output from idnits.  One error was found: lack of a Table of
Contents.

idnits 2.14.02

tmp/draft-ietf-slim-multilangcontent-08.txt:
tmp/draft-ietf-slim-multilangcontent-08.txt(688): Possible code comment in
line:        more message/*) may contain 7-bit, 8-bit or binary encodings..
tmp/draft-ietf-slim-multilangcontent-08.txt(712): Found possible FQDN
'rfc.nik.tomkinson' in position 7; this doesn't match RFC 2606's suggested
".example" or ".example.(com|org|net)".

 - The draft-ietf-slim-multilangcontent state file is not from today.
   Attempting to download a newer one...
 - Success fetching draft-ietf-slim-multilangcontent state file.

 - The draft-ietf-slim-negotiating-human-language state file is not from today.
   Attempting to download a newer one...
 - Success fetching draft-ietf-slim-negotiating-human-language state file.

 - The draft-tomkinson-multilangcontent state file is not from today.
   Attempting to download a newer one...
 - Success fetching draft-tomkinson-multilangcontent state file.

 - The draft-tomkinson-slim-multilangcontent state file is not from today.
   Attempting to download a newer one...
 - Success fetching draft-tomkinson-slim-multilangcontent state file.

 - The rfc1996 state file is not from today.
   Attempting to download a newer one...
 - Success fetching rfc1996 state file.

 - The rfc2046 state file is not from today.
   Attempting to download a newer one...
 - Success fetching rfc2046 state file.

 - The rfc2047 state file is not from today.
   Attempting to download a newer one...
 - Success fetching rfc2047 state file.

 - The rfc2183 state file is not from today.
   Attempting to download a newer one...
 - Success fetching rfc2183 state file.

 - The rfc3282 state file is not from today.
   Attempting to download a newer one...
 - Success fetching rfc3282 state file.

 - The rfc4647 state file is not from today.
   Attempting to download a newer one...
 - Success fetching rfc4647 state file.

 - The rfc480 state file is not from today.
   Attempting to download a newer one...
 - Success fetching rfc480 state file.

 - The rfc5646 state file is not from today.
   Attempting to download a newer one...
 - Success fetching rfc5646 state file.

 - The rfc6532 state file is not from today.
   Attempting to download a newer one...
 - Success fetching rfc6532 state file.

 - The rfc822 state file is not from today.
   Attempting to download a newer one...
 - Success fetching rfc822 state file.

 - The rfc997 state file is not from today.
   Attempting to download a newer one...
 - Success fetching rfc997 state file.

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

     No issues found here.

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

  ** The document is more than 15 pages and seems to lack a Table of Contents.

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

  == There are 1 instance of lines with non-RFC2606-compliant FQDNs in the
     document.

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

  -- The document date (June 12, 2017) is 29 days in the past.  Is this
     intentional?

  -- Found something which looks like a code comment -- if you have code
     sections in the document, please surround them with '<CODE BEGINS>' and
     '<CODE ENDS>' lines.

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

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

  == Outdated reference: A later version (-12) exists of
     draft-ietf-slim-negotiating-human-language-10

     Summary: 1 error (**), 0 flaws (~~), 2 warnings (==), 2 comments (--).

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

This document does not require MIB Doctor, media type or URI type reviews.

(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?

There are no normative references to drafts, only RFCs.

(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).

There is a request to register the multipart/multilingual MIME type as well as
the Translation-Type field.

(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.

There are no new IANA registries created by this document.

(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.

This document does not utilize any formal languages.
Back