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