xCard: vCard XML Representation
draft-ietf-vcarddav-vcardxml-11

[Ballot comment]
5.1.  Extensibility

  The original vCard format is extensible.  New properties, parameters,
  data types and values (collectively known as vCard objects) can be
  registered with IANA.  It is expected that these vCard extensions
  will also specify extensions to the XML format described in this
  document.

I think that this paragraph refers to the procedure described in Section 10.2 of http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-vcarddav-vcardrev-21.txt for registering new vCard elements. I beleieve that an explicit reference would be useful. Also, why are the vCard extensions called 'objects' in this document and 'elements' in the other? Also just saying 'can be registered with IANA' is somehow mis-leading (especially in the absence of the reference) as this is no routine IANA registration, but a procedure that requires a standards-track RFC in some cases.

[Ballot comment]
The Relax NG specification really does need a reference that would help
identify the correct base specification. I think you could use an OASIS
URL, but I would prefer the ISO number.

[Ballot comment]
The Security Considerations say:

    All the security considerations applicable to plain vCard
    [I-D.ietf-vcarddav-vcardrev] are applicable to this document
    as well.

  This is completely correct; however, the use of XML digital
  signature and XML encryption are appropriate security mechanisms
  in this situation, while these mechanisms are not appropriate for
  a plain vCard.  This seems worthy of mention.

The document shepherd's writeup is as follows:

###

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

Alexey Melnikov

(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 had sufficient reviews from the VCARDDAV WG.

(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.
Schema was verified manually by Mike Douglass (and some errors were
found and fixed).  Additional issues were found during WGLC.


(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. 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.

No.

(1.e) 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?

There is a solid WG consensus behind the 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.

(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/). 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?

Yes. idnits 2.12.11 was used to check the document.

The 2 weeks media type review was completed on
ietf-types@iana.org mailing list.  It was requested on April 7th 2011:


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

References are properly split. There are no DownRefs.

There is one Normative reference to another draft
([I-D.ietf-vcarddav-vcardrev]), but both this draft and
[I-D.ietf-vcarddav-vcardrev] are going to be submitted to IESG
for review at the same time.

(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
registries? Are the IANA registries clearly identified? 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?

Yes. IANA Considerations section look to be complete and correct.

(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?

XML examples were checked using Visual Studio.
Schema was verified manually.

(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:

[redacted -- see ballot writeup]

###

[Note]: changed to 'The document shepherd is Alexey Melnikov.

The shepherd's writeup is as follows:

###

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

Alexey Melnikov

(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 had sufficient reviews from the VCARDDAV WG.

(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.
Schema was verified manually by Mike Douglass (and some errors were
found and fixed).  Additional issues were found during WGLC.


(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. 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.

No.

(1.e) 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?

There is a solid WG consensus behind the 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.

(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/). 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?

Yes. idnits 2.12.11 was used to check the document.

The 2 weeks media type review was completed on
ietf-types@iana.org mailing list.  It was requested on April 7th 2011:


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

References are properly split. There are no DownRefs.

There is one Normative reference to another draft
([I-D.ietf-vcarddav-vcardrev]), but both this draft and
[I-D.ietf-vcarddav-vcardrev] are going to be submitted to IESG
for review at the same time.

(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
registries? Are the IANA registries clearly identified? 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?

Yes. IANA Considerations section look to be complete and correct.

(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?

XML examples were checked using Visual Studio.
Schema was verified manually.

(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:

[redacted -- see ballot writeup]

###'

IANA understands that, upon approval of this document, there will be two
actions that IANA must complete.

First, in the namespace XML registry maintained by IANA located at:

http://www.iana.org/assignments/xml-registry/ns.html

a new name space will be registered as follows:

ID: vcard-4.0
URI: urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:vcard-4.0
Registration template: NONE
Reference: [RFC-to-be]

Second, in the application media type registry for MIME Media Types
located at:

http://www.iana.org/assignments/media-types/application/index.html

the following media type will be registered:

vcard+xml
[RFC-to-be]

IANA understands that these are the only actions required to be
completed upon approval of this document.

State changed to In Last Call from Last Call Requested.

The following Last Call Announcement was sent out:

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC:
Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Last Call:  (vCard XML Representation) to Proposed Standard


The IESG has received a request from the vCard and CardDAV WG (vcarddav)
to consider the following document:
- 'vCard XML Representation'
  as a 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 2011-04-20. 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.

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

IESG discussion can be tracked via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-vcarddav-vcardxml/