vCard Format Extensions: Representing vCard Extensions Defined by the Open Mobile Alliance (OMA) Converged Address Book (CAB) Group
draft-ietf-vcarddav-oma-cab-extensions-03

IANA has reviewed draft-ietf-vcarddav-oma-cab-extensions and has the following comments:

IANA has questions about the IANA actions requested in this document.

IANA understands that, upon approval of this document, there are three IANA
actions which must be completed.

IANA Question -> the requests to make changes to the vCard Properties,
Parameters and Values registries are requests that each require Expert Review as
defined in RFC 5226.  Has the document been reviewed by the vCard Properties,
Parameters and Values registry expert?

First, in the vCard Properties subregistry of the vCard Elements registry
located at:

http://www.iana.org/assignments/vcard-elements/vcard-elements.xml

the following properties will be added to the registry:

+-------+---------------------------+-------------------------+
| Name  |                          |                        |
| space | Property                  | Reference              |
+-------+---------------------------+-------------------------+
|      | EXPERTISE                | [ RFC-to-be ], sec 2.1  |
|      | HOBBY                    | [ RFC-to-be ], sec 2.2  |
|      | INTEREST                  | [ RFC-to-be ], sec 2.3  |
|      | ORG-URI                  | [ RFC-to-be ], sec 2.4  |
+-------+---------------------------+-------------------------+

Second, in the vCard Parameters subregistry of the vCard Elements registry
located at:

http://www.iana.org/assignments/vcard-elements/vcard-elements.xml

the following parameters will be added to the registry:

+-------+---------------------------+-------------------------+
| Name  |                          |                        |
| space | Parameter                | Reference              |
+-------+---------------------------+-------------------------+
|      | INDEX                    | [ RFC-to-be ], sec 3.1  |
|      | LEVEL                    | [ RFC-to-be ], sec 3.2  |
+-------+---------------------------+-------------------------+

Third, in the vCard Values subregistry of the vCard Elements registry located at:

http://www.iana.org/assignments/vcard-elements/vcard-elements.xml

the following values will be added to the registry:

+-----------+-----------+---------------+-------------------------+
| Property  | Parameter | Value        | Reference              |
+-----------+-----------+---------------+-------------------------+
| EXPERTISE | LEVEL    | beginner      | [ RFC-to-be ], sec 3.2  |
| EXPERTISE | LEVEL    | average      | [ RFC-to-be ], sec 3.2  |
| EXPERTISE | LEVEL    | expert        | [ RFC-to-be ], sec 3.2  |
| HOBBY    | LEVEL    | high          | [ RFC-to-be ], sec 3.2  |
| HOBBY    | LEVEL    | medium        | [ RFC-to-be ], sec 3.2  |
| HOBBY    | LEVEL    | low          | [ RFC-to-be ], sec 3.2  |
| INTEREST  | LEVEL    | high          | [ RFC-to-be ], sec 3.2  |
| INTEREST  | LEVEL    | medium        | [ RFC-to-be ], sec 3.2  |
| INTEREST  | LEVEL    | low          | [ RFC-to-be ], sec 3.2  |
+-----------+---------------------------+-------------------------+

IANA understands that these three actions are the only ones that are necessary
to be completed upon approval of the document.

Note: The actions requested in this document will not be completed
until the document has been approved for publication as an RFC.
This message is only to confirm what actions will be performed.

[Ballot comment]

  In the Gen-ART Review by Joel Halpern on 8-Jun-2012, it was pointed
  out that a reference two RFC 2119 is needed since there is one MUST.

[Ballot comment]

- The INDEX parameter in 3.1 seems different from the others. I
wondered if it really caused this to update 6530, since presumably it
could make sense with any multi-valued thing? I assume the argument
that it doesn't is that 6530 implementations will ignore it if they
don't also support this spec, and I'm ok with that, but just wanted to
check.

- Is LEVEL (3.2) only supposed to be used with hobby, etc.? If so, then
maybe you need some 2119 language for that? If not, then maybe say
that. I could imagine LEVEL being used e.g. with ROLE or TITLE or
maybe even SOUND (at a stretch:-).

The following Last Call announcement was sent out:

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC:
Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Last Call:  (vCard Format extension : represent vCard extensions defined by the Open Mobile Alliance (OMA) Converged Address Book (CAB) group) to Proposed Standard


The IESG has received a request from the vCard and CardDAV WG (vcarddav)
to consider the following document:
- 'vCard Format extension : represent vCard extensions defined by the
  Open Mobile Alliance (OMA) Converged Address Book (CAB) group'
  as Proposed Standard

The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the
ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2012-06-18. Exceptionally, comments may be
sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the
beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting.

Abstract


  This document defines extensions to the vCard data format for
  representing and exchanging certain contact information.  The
  properties covered here have been defined by the Open Mobile Alliance
  Converged Address Book group, in order to synchronize, using OMA Data
  Synchronization, contact fields that were not already defined in the
  base vCard 4.0 specification.




The file can be obtained via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-vcarddav-oma-cab-extensions/

IESG discussion can be tracked via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-vcarddav-oma-cab-extensions/ballot/


No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D.

(1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard,
Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)?

Proposed Standard

Why is this the proper type of RFC?

The document defines new protocol elements to be used by interoperable
implementations.

Is this type of RFC indicated in the title page header?

Yes.

(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

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 document defines extensions to the vCard data format for
  representing and exchanging certain contact information.  The
  properties covered here have been defined by the Open Mobile Alliance
  Converged Address Book group, in order to synchronize, using OMA Data
  Synchronization, contact fields that were not already defined in the
  base vCard 4.0 specification.

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?

Initial draft versions have been reviewed by the working group, but then
the working group fell silent. No comments were received during WGLC.
Reviews were solicited after WGLC and two thorough reviews have been
received. The document was then modified after WGLC to address those
reviews.

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?

This shepherd does not know of any current or future implementations.

Personnel

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

Document Shepherd: Simon Perreault
Responsible Area Director: Pete Resnick

(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.

I have reviewed the document completely. I have also done the same for
two previous versions. I believe the document 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 concerns.

(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.

Several vCard experts have reviewed the document in depth.

(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 concerns at all.

(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.

(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 disclosure.

(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?

The consensus represents the (small) WG as a whole.

(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.

(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.

The document seems to lack a both a reference to RFC 2119 and the
recommended RFC 2119 boilerplate, even if uses RFC 2119 keywords.

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

No such reviews were necessary.

(13) Have all references within this document been identified as
either normative or informative?

Yes, and they are all normative.

Note that two OMA documents are used as normative references.

(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?

No such references.

(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 such references.

(16) Will publication of this document change the status of any
existing RFCs?

No.

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.

(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).

I have reviewed the IANA considerations section. Its content appears
correct and the registries are clearly identified.

(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.

No new IANA registries.

(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.

BNF checked with Bill Fenner's checker. No errors found.

Error found in an example on page 8 (missing whitespace):

OLD:
      ORG-DIRECTORY;PREF=1:ldap://ldap.tech.example/
      o=Example%20Tech,ou=Engineering

NEW:
      ORG-DIRECTORY;PREF=1:ldap://ldap.tech.example/
        o=Example%20Tech,ou=Engineering