Shepherd writeup
rfc6474-02

   (1.a) Who is the Document Shepherd for this document?

Simon Perreault <simon.perreault@viagenie.ca>

         Has the
         Document Shepherd personally reviewed this version of the 
         document and, in particular, does he or she believe this 
         version is ready for forwarding to the IESG for publication?

Yes.

   (1.b) Has the document had adequate review both from key WG members 
         and from key non-WG members? Does the Document Shepherd have 
         any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that 
         have been performed?  

This document has received significant reviews from the community.

   (1.c) Does the Document Shepherd have concerns that the document 
         needs more review from a particular or broader perspective, 
         e.g., security, operational complexity, someone familiar with 
         AAA, internationalization or XML?

No concerns.

   (1.d) Does the Document Shepherd have any specific concerns or 
         issues 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.

         Has an IPR disclosure related to this document 
         been filed? If so, please include a reference to the 
         disclosure and summarize the WG discussion and conclusion on 
         this issue.

None.

   (1.e) How solid is the WG consensus behind this document?

Very solid.

         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?

The WG has a good understanding of, and agreement with, this document.

   (1.f) 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 
         entered into the ID Tracker.)

No such threats or appeals.

   (1.g) Has the Document Shepherd personally verified that the 
         document satisfies all ID nits? (See the Internet-Drafts Checklist 
         and http://tools.ietf.org/tools/idnits/).

Yes.

         Boilerplate checks are 
         not enough; this check needs to be thorough. Has the document 
         met all formal review criteria it needs to, such as the MIB 
         Doctor, media type and URI type reviews?

The document does not specify a MIB, media type, or URI, and thus
does not need to meet those review criteria.

   (1.h) Has the document split its references into normative and 
         informative?

Yes. (Although there are no informative references.)

         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 
         strategy for their completion? Are there normative references 
         that are downward references, as described in [RFC3967]? If 
         so, list these downward references to support the Area 
         Director in the Last Call procedure for them [RFC3967].

All normative references are upward references. All references are to
RFCs (including a reference to draft-ietf-vcarddav-vcardrev which has
been published as RFC 6350).

   (1.i) Has the Document Shepherd verified that the document IANA 
         consideration section exists and is consistent with the body 
         of the document?

Yes.

         If the document specifies protocol 
         extensions, are reservations requested in appropriate IANA 
         registries?

Yes.

         Are the IANA registries clearly identified?

Yes.

         If 
         the document creates a new registry, does it define the 
         proposed initial contents of the registry and an allocation 
         procedure for future registrations?Does it suggest a 
         reasonable name for the new registry? See [RFC5226]. If the 
         document describes an Expert Review process has Shepherd 
         conferred with the Responsible Area Director so that the IESG 
         can appoint the needed Expert during the IESG Evaluation?

The document does not create a new IANA registry.

   (1.j) Has the Document Shepherd verified that sections of the 
         document that are written in a formal language, such as XML 
         code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc., validate correctly in 
         an automated checker? 

ABNF verified with BAP.

   (1.k) 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 specification defines three new vCard properties:
- BIRTHPLACE: Place of birth
- DEATHPLACE: Place of death
- DEATHDATE: Date of death (date of birth already in core vCard)

      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?

No.

      Document Quality 
         Are there existing implementations of the protocol?

None known.

         Have a 
         significant number of vendors indicated their plan to 
         implement the specification?

None known (besides the authors).

         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? 

Among others, the editor of vCard 4 reviewed the document thoroughly.

Back