(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 header?
Informational. This type has been used for previous registrations of similar
media type structured suffixes ([RFC6389]). The title page indicates that this
is Informational. (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 This document defines and registers the “+json-seq” media type
structured suffix in the IANA “Structured Syntax Suffix” registry based on the
guidelines in RFC6838.
GeoJSON Text Sequences
(https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-geojson-text-sequence/) is
dependent on this registration -
https://github.com/geojson/geojson-text-sequences/issues/19. Working Group
Summary The registration was reviewed on [art] and [geojson]. There was no
controversy (or need for formal WG adoption) since this is a simple
registration. 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? Personnel
Who is the Document Shepherd? Who is the Responsible Area Director? There are
no existing implementations. Brian Raymor is the Document Shepherd. Alexey
Melnikov is the Responsible Area Director. (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. The Document Shepherd has reviewed the document
and is confident that the updated 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. This is a simple registration of a media
type structured suffix. (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. No. (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. None. (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
discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures. No IPR disclosures
have been filed. (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? It represents the strong concurrence of a
few individuals. (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. No ID nits
were identified. (12) Describe how the document meets any required formal
review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews. Not
relevant. (13) Have all references within this document been identified as
either normative or informative? Yes. (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. (15) Are there downward normative references (see RFC 3967)? If
so, list these downward references to support the Area Director in the Last
Call procedure. No. (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. No. (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). The Document
Shepherd confirms that this document follows the RFC6838 registration process
and includes the completed template. (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. Not relevant. (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.
Not relevant.