[precis] Document Shepherd Write-Up for draft-ietf-precis-problem-statement-08
Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter@stpeter.im> Thu, 20 September 2012 18:23 UTC
Return-Path: <stpeter@stpeter.im>
X-Original-To: precis@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: precis@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8C59921F86A2; Thu, 20 Sep 2012 11:23:49 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id BsnvglftY5cB; Thu, 20 Sep 2012 11:23:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from stpeter.im (mailhost.stpeter.im [207.210.219.225]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2874C21F84B6; Thu, 20 Sep 2012 11:23:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.1.182] (unknown [71.237.13.154]) (Authenticated sender: stpeter) by stpeter.im (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 6EDC140DA5; Thu, 20 Sep 2012 12:24:56 -0600 (MDT)
Message-ID: <505B5F32.3020604@stpeter.im>
Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2012 12:23:46 -0600
From: Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter@stpeter.im>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.7; rv:15.0) Gecko/20120907 Thunderbird/15.0.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Pete Resnick <presnick@qualcomm.com>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.4.4
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: "precis@ietf.org" <precis@ietf.org>
Subject: [precis] Document Shepherd Write-Up for draft-ietf-precis-problem-statement-08
X-BeenThere: precis@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Preparation and Comparison of Internationalized Strings <precis.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/precis>, <mailto:precis-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/precis>
List-Post: <mailto:precis@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:precis-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/precis>, <mailto:precis-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2012 18:23:49 -0000
Dear Pete (PRECIS WG cc'd, IESG secretary bcc'd): In accordance with RFC 4858, here is the Document Shepherd Write-Up for "Stringprep Revision and PRECIS Problem Statement" (draft-ietf-precis-problem-statement-08). Peter ### Specification: draft-ietf-precis-problem-statement-08 Shepherd: Peter Saint-Andre Date: 2012-09-20 (1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? Informational. Why is this the proper type of RFC? The document does not define any protocol and thus is not appropriate for the standards track. Informational is the usual type for problem statements. 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 If a protocol expects to compare two strings and is prepared only for those strings to be ASCII, then using Unicode codepoints in those strings requires they be prepared somehow. Internationalizing Domain Names in Applications (here called IDNA2003) defined and used Stringprep and Nameprep. Other protocols subsequently defined Stringprep profiles. A new approach different from Stringprep and Nameprep is used for a revision of IDNA2003 (called IDNA2008). Other Stringprep profiles need to be similarly updated or a replacement of Stringprep needs to be designed. This document outlines the issues to be faced by those designing a Stringprep replacement. Working Group Summary The document records the consensus from discussion at the NEWPREP BoF (IETF 77, March 2010) and the resulting PRECIS WG regarding the problem to be solved in developing a replacement for the Stringprep technology in application protocols other than IDNA. There has not been controversy about the nature of the problem to be solved, and consensus was not rough. Document Quality The document has provided a clear basis for work on the proposed PRECIS framework, and thus has served its purpose. Personnel The Document Shepherd is Peter Saint-Andre. The Responsible Area Director is 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 each iteration of the document while it was under development in the working group. I have also more carefully reviewed the version (08) being forwarded to the IESG. In my opinion, the document accurately reflects the consensus of the working group and is ready for publication (although on a final reading I noticed some small but obvious linguistic errors, suitable for correction by the RFC Editor). (4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed? The document has been reviewed by a number of knowledgeable participants within the PRECIS WG. I do not have concerns about the depth or breadth of review. Naturally, the protocol specifications that attempt to solve the problems outlined in this document will require more thorough review. (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. The entire document discusses internationalization, albeit in an informational fashion. Based on my experience with the topic, I conclude that the document is well within the bounds of good practices for internationalization, for instance by building on the work already completed in the IDNA2008 effort. In my opinion, no more specialized or broad reviews are needed with regard to this informational problem statement. (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. It is important to publish this document so as to provide a foundation for the working group's protocol development. The area of work is complex, making a problem statement all the more valuable. I was uncomfortable with the fact that a prior version of this document foreshadowed the proposed solution by recommending particular string classes, but that text was removed (appropriately, I think) and thus I am now comfortable with the document in its entirety. (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. As document shepherd I have confirmed that the authors are not personally aware of any IPR related to this document. (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 disclosures have been filed in relation to this document. (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? With the caveat that the PRECIS WG (as is true of other working groups focused on internationalization) does not contain a large number of participants, let alone active participants, I would say that the WG consensus for publishing this document is solid. (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.) I am not aware of any threatened appeals or areas of significant conflict regarding this document. (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 nits triggered by version -07 have been fixed in -08. (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 were appropriate for this problem statement. (13) Have all references within this document been identified as either normative or informative? Given that the document itself is informative, no normative references were appropriate and all of the references are informative. (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? There are no normative 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. There are no downward normative 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 WG considers it unnecessary. This document does not change 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 the IANA, and that is correct. (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 registries are to be created by this document. (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. Not applicable. END ###
- [precis] Document Shepherd Write-Up for draft-iet… Peter Saint-Andre
- Re: [precis] Document Shepherd Write-Up for draft… Pete Resnick
- Re: [precis] Document Shepherd Write-Up for draft… Peter Saint-Andre