Netnews Architecture and Protocols
draft-ietf-usefor-usepro-14

Document writeup for draft-ietf-usefor-usepro-13, for Proposed
Standard.

This form was taken from
http://tools.ietf.org/group/proto/home/draft-writeup-items.html, and
is dated May 2004 on that site.

  1. Have the chairs personally reviewed this version of the ID and
  do they believe this ID is sufficiently baked to forward to the
  IESG for publication?

  Yes.

  2. Has the document had adequate review from both key WG members
  and key non-WG members? Do you have any concerns about the depth or
  breadth of the reviews that have been performed?

  Yes. Number of reviewers is an issue with this WG, but I
  believe all active WG members have reviewed the draft.

  3. Do you have concerns that the document needs more review from a
  particular (broader) perspective (e.g., security, operational
  complexity, someone familiar with AAA, etc.)?

      No.

  4. Do you have any specific concerns/issues with this document that
  you believe the ADs and/or IESG should be aware of? For example,
  perhaps you are uncomfortable with certain parts of the document,
  or whether there really is a need for it, etc., but at the same
  time these issues have been discussed in the WG and the WG has
  indicated it wishes to advance the document anyway.

      This document has been a very long time in development.
      One issue (handling of Injection-Date with multiple injection)
      was decided by a WG poll that ended up 5-4 - while this does
      not demonstrate a consensus, all parties agreed that we had to
      pick one alternative to get finished.

      At the time of this writing, there are 2 open issues listed in
      the tracker; if closed with no modification, there would be
      little harm; one might result in a very small text tweak.

  5. 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?

      Some WG participants feel that the WG should have shut down and
      abandoned the effort long ago. All WG members (I think) have
      some nit with some part of the document.
      The chairs believe there's strong consensus in the WG that it
      is good to get the document out the door.

  6. Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme
  discontent? If so, please summarize what are they upset about.

      No.

  7. Have the chairs verified that the document adheres to _all_ of
  the ID nits? (see http://www.ietf.org/ID-nits.html).

      Yes.

      Note that the automated nits checker will give warnings about
      names that look like domain names, such as "example.admin.info".
      These are example newsgroups, and as such it is clearly in the
      spirit of RFC 2606 to put "example" on the left for these.

  8. Does the document a) split references into
  normative/informative, and b) are there normative references to
  IDs, where the IDs are not also ready for advancement or are
  otherwise in an unclear state? (Note: the RFC editor will not
  publish an RFC with normative references to IDs, it will delay
  publication until all such IDs are also ready for publication as
  RFCs.)

      Yes, and no.

  9. For Standards Track and BCP documents, the IESG approval
      announcement includes a writeup section with the following
      sections:
        * Technical Summary
        * Working Group Summary
        * Protocol Quality

    Please provide such a writeup. (We will hopefully use it as is,
    but may make some changes.) For recent examples, have a look at
    the "protocol action" announcements for approved documents.


    Technical summary:
        This document describes the operational procedures involved
        in running the NetNews service, including the roles of all
        the components of the service. It establishes terminology and
        expectations of behaviour for News servers independent of the
        protocol they use to communicate.
This, together with draft-ietf-usefor-usefor, obsoletes RFC
        1036.

    Working group summary:
        The USEFOR working group has been working on this document in
        various versions since 1998. This version was split from
        the -usefor document in 2004. Progress has been slow, and
        contention has erupted over both major and minor matters.
The group is now down to a very small size (~5 people), and
        it is not believed that working at this longer will improve
        the document significantly.
The WG has consensus that this document is a far better
        specification than RFC 1036.

    Protocol quality
        The specification allows major News implementations to claim
        conformance as-is. Some innovations done in the course of the
        WG's work have been incorporated into existing News servers.
The editor is himself a News server implementor.

IANA Last Call comments:

Action #1

Upon approval of this document, the IANA will make the following
assignmentsin the "Application Media Types" registry at
http://www.iana.org/assignments/media-types/application/

news-groupinfo [RFC-usefor-usepro-12]
news-checkgroups [RFC-usefor-usepro-12]

Action #2
Upon approval of this document, the IANA will make the following
changesin the "Application Media Types" registry at
http://www.iana.org/assignments/media-types/application/

OLD:
news-transmission [RFC1036][ Spencer]

NEW:
news-transmission [RFC-usefor-usepro-12][RFC1036][ Spencer]


Action #3
Upon approval of this document, the IANA will make the following
changesin the "Message Media Types" registry at
http://www.iana.org/assignments/media-types/message/

OLD:
news [RFC1036] [H.Spencer]

NEW:
news OBSOLETE [RFC-usefor-usepro-12] [RFC1036] [H.Spencer]

We understand the above to be the only IANA Actions for this
document.