[VCARDDAV] Publication requested, draft-ietf-vcarddav-kind-app-00
Simon Perreault <simon.perreault@viagenie.ca> Wed, 14 September 2011 14:44 UTC
Return-Path: <simon.perreault@viagenie.ca>
X-Original-To: vcarddav@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: vcarddav@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4801C21F8CDD; Wed, 14 Sep 2011 07:44:55 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.579
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.579 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.020, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id qaqFJCTGrKEt; Wed, 14 Sep 2011 07:44:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from jazz.viagenie.ca (unknown [IPv6:2620:0:230:8000:226:55ff:fe57:14db]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 12BB221F8CEE; Wed, 14 Sep 2011 07:44:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from banana.viagenie.ca (nomis80.org [97.107.136.111]) by jazz.viagenie.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id C546521F72; Wed, 14 Sep 2011 10:46:57 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <4E70BE60.5010509@viagenie.ca>
Date: Wed, 14 Sep 2011 10:46:56 -0400
From: Simon Perreault <simon.perreault@viagenie.ca>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686; rv:5.0) Gecko/20110707 Thunderbird/5.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Pete Resnick <presnick@qualcomm.com>, iesg-secretary@ietf.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: vcarddav@ietf.org
Subject: [VCARDDAV] Publication requested, draft-ietf-vcarddav-kind-app-00
X-BeenThere: vcarddav@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF vcarddav wg mailing list <vcarddav.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/vcarddav>, <mailto:vcarddav-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/vcarddav>
List-Post: <mailto:vcarddav@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:vcarddav-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/vcarddav>, <mailto:vcarddav-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 14 Sep 2011 14:44:55 -0000
VCARDDAV requests publication of draft-ietf-vcarddav-kind-app-00. PROTO writeup is below. Thanks, Simon --- > (1.a) Who is the Document Shepherd for this document? Simon Perreault <simon.perreault@viagenie.ca> > 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? Yes. > (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 has received significant reviews from the community. > (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 concerns. > (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. No concerns. > 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. None. > (1.e) How solid is the WG consensus behind this document? Very solid. > 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? The WG has a good understanding of, and agreement with, this 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 such threats or appeals. > (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/). Yes. > 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? The document does not specify a MIB, media type, or URI, and thus does not need to meet those review criteria. > (1.h) Has the document split its references into normative and > informative? Yes. > 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]. All normative references are upward references. All references are to RFCs (including a reference to draft-ietf-vcarddav-vcardrev which has been published as RFC 6350). > (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? Yes. > Are the IANA registries clearly identified? Yes. > 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? The document does not create a new IANA registry. > (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? The document contains no such formal language. > (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 > Relevant content can frequently be found in the abstract > and/or introduction of the document. If not, this may be > an indication that there are deficiencies in the abstract > or introduction. This document defines a value of "application" for the vCard KIND property so that vCards can be used to represent software applications. An example use case is representing an XMPP server. > Working Group Summary > Was there anything in WG process that is worth noting? For > example, was there controversy about particular points or > were there decisions where the consensus was particularly > rough? The scope was significantly reduced from "thing" to "application". No problems reaching consensus. > Document Quality > Are there existing implementations of the protocol? http://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0292.html > Have a > significant number of vendors indicated their plan to > implement the specification? XMPP implementations are expected 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? They are listed in the acknowledgements section. > 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? No such reviews were necessary. -- DTN made easy, lean, and smart --> http://postellation.viagenie.ca NAT64/DNS64 open-source --> http://ecdysis.viagenie.ca STUN/TURN server --> http://numb.viagenie.ca
- [VCARDDAV] Publication requested, draft-ietf-vcar… Simon Perreault
- Re: [VCARDDAV] Publication requested, draft-ietf-… Peter Saint-Andre