(1.a) Who is the Document Shepherd for this document?
Simon Perreault <firstname.lastname@example.org>
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?
(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?
(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
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
(1.e) How solid is the WG consensus behind this document?
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
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
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?
If the document specifies protocol
extensions, are reservations requested in appropriate IANA
Are the IANA registries clearly identified?
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:
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
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
Are there existing implementations of the protocol?
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.