[EAI] Publication request of draft-ietf-eai-rfc5335bis-12

["Jiankang YAO" <[e-mail]>]

Dear ADs,

This message is a request to publish
draft-ietf-eai-rfc5335bis-12 on the Standards Track.
The draft represents the rough consensus of the EAI Working
Group.

As required by RFC 4858, below is the completed current template for
the Document Shepherd Write-Up.


Best regards,
Jiankang Yao(Shepherd for this document)


--------------------------------------------

DRAFT FILENAME: 
    draft-ietf-eai-rfc5335bis-12
TITLE:    
    Internationalized Email Headers



  (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? 

Jiankang Yao.  Yes, I believe it is ready.

  (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?

There has been a lot of discussions about this draft. An earlier
version went through WG last call in Nov. 2010. That version received
a significant number of comments. As a result, an additional author
was added and the document restructured to address all of the issues
that the WG considered substantive.  In Sep. 2011, this draft got
another WG last call to confirm that the revised version had gotten
rough consensus.  The EAI WG has been talking about this draft for
very long time.  I believe it has had adequate review.  
  
  (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.

  (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. 

The question of whether this document should be identified as updating
RFC 5322 remains unanswered, partially because neither the IETF nor
the RFC Editor has a clear rule about the point at which document that
extend a base specification but do not significant modify it are
considered to be updated.  Quoting the current lead editor, "we
change the line length limit from 998 characters to 998 octets". This
is really an i18n clarification: a count in "characters" and one in
"octets" are identical for ASCII, but "octets" provides a precise and
invariant length independent of character set and encoding.  The WG is
happy to have the IESG resolve this issue as you think appropriate.

People representing the part of the Netnews community who believe that netnews and
Internet mail are the same except for transport are still grousing about a
decision (Message-IDs) that might have been different had the WG considered
behavior on the other side of gateways as more
important than smooth operation within the SMTP environment on
the public Internet. 

There are no other known issues.


  (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?   

Many WG participants from EAI WG have reviewed this document and
 had reasonably strong WG consensus.  There has been no dissent in the
 last two calls for comment within the WG.

  (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, I have checked it. There is one outdated reference: A later
  version (-13) exists of draft-ietf-eai-rfc5336bis-07

  (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]. 

Yes.  There are normative references to [I-D.ietf-eai-frmwrk-4952bis]
and [I-D.ietf-eai-rfc5336bis], which are part of this package.  The
former is already in the RFC Editor queue awaiting approval of this
document and draft-ietf-eai-rfc5336bis before being published.  This
document and draft-ietf-eai-rfc5336bis resolve those downward or
missing references; they do not introduce new ones.

  (1.i) Has the Document Shepherd verified that the document IANA 
        consideration section exists and is consistent with the body 
        of the document? 

Yes.


        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? 

No new registries, but IANA is requested to update the registration of 
the message/global MIME type 

 (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? 

Yes.

  (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: 

     Technical Summary 

This document specifies an enhancement to the Internet Message Format
that allows use of Unicode in mail addresses and most header field
content.



     Working Group Summary 
        
This document has been discussed in EAI WG for a very long time. 
The WG came to consensus on this document.



     Document Quality 

The documents have been extensively reviewed by people with mail
expertise. It is in very good shape.

(end)


-------------------------------------------------------------------