Skip to main content

Shepherd writeup

Document Write-up for draft-sparks-genarea-mailarch-improvements-02

(1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard, Internet
Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)?  Why is this the
proper type of RFC?  Is this type of RFC indicated in the title page

  This document is intended for publication as an Informational RFC.
  It will serve as the Statement of Work (SOW) by the IAOC to contract
  for improvements to the IETF mail archive tools.

(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

  The IETF web-based email archive search tool was deployed in
  January 2014.  It was based on the requirements captured in
  RFC 6778.  This memo captures requirements for a set of
  improvements that have been identified during its initial
  years of community use.

Working Group Summary

  No IETF Working Group was involved in producing this document.
  This document has been reviewed by the IAOC Tools Committee.

Document Quality

  This document has been discussed by the IAOC Tools Committee, and it
  has been discussed on the tools-discuss mail list.  The vast majority
  of comments raised have been incorporated into the document.  As is
  often the case in sch discussions, some comments did not gain support
  from others, and these comments were not incorporated.

  Document Shepherd: Russ Housley

  Responsible Area Director: Jari Arkko

(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

  The document shepherd reviewed the document and participated in
  the mail list discussions about the document.

(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

  Review by the community during IETF Last Call is needed to confirm
  that the document captures all of the necessary improvements to
  the mail archive search tool.

(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 interested community has discussed
those issues and has indicated that it still wishes to advance the
document, detail those concerns here.

  No concerns.

(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.

  Robert Sparks is the only author, and he has confirmed that this
  Internet-Draft was submitted in full conformance with the provisions
  of BCP 78 and BCP 79.

(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document?  If
so, summarize any discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR

  No IPR disclosures have been submitted against this document.

(9) How solid is the consensus of the interested community behind this
document?  Does it represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals,
with others being silent, or does the interested community as a whole
understand and agree with it?

  This document has been discussed by the IAOC Tools Committee, and it
  has been discussed on the tools-discuss mail list.  However, everyone
  in the IETF community should have an opportunity to review the email
  archive search tool requirements.   IETF Last Call of this document
  will provide that opportunity.

(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.)

  So far, there have been no threats of appeal.

(11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this
document.  (See and the Internet-Drafts
Checklist).  Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be

  IDnits found no issues.

  Review of the I-D Checklist found no issues.

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

  No formal reviews are needed.

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

  The document contains one normative reference and one informative
  reference.  These are called out in separate sections.

(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?

  The document contains one normative reference, and it is already
  published as an RFC.

(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.

  There are no downward references.

(16) Will publication of this document change the status of any existing
RFCs?  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
interested community considers it unnecessary.

  This document does not changes the status of any existing RFCs.

(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).

  This document has no actions for IANA.

(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.

  This document has no actions for IANA or IANA expert reviewers.

(19) Describe reviews and automated checks performed by to validate
sections of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code,
BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc.

  No formal languages are used in this document.