[xmpp] Fwd: Publication Request for draft-ietf-xmpp-address

[Ben Campbell <[e-mail]>]

FYI

Begin forwarded message:

> From: Ben Campbell <[e-mail]>
> Date: September 30, 2010 2:27:32 PM CDT
> To: IESG Secretary <[e-mail]>, Gonzalo Camarillo <[e-mail]>
> Cc: Joe Hildebrand <[e-mail]>, Peter Saint-Andre <[e-mail]>
> Subject: Publication Request for draft-ietf-xmpp-address
> 
> This is a publication request for draft-ietf-xmpp-address. The proto write-up is below. Note that this draft was inadvertently moved to the "publication requested" state, but that state should be correct after this request.
> 
> Thanks!
> 
> Ben.
> --------------------------------
> PROTO writeup for http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-xmpp-address-03.txt: "Extensible Messaging and Presence Protocol (XMPP): Address Format"
> 
> (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?
> 
> The document shepherd for this document is Ben Campbell.
> 
> The document has been reviewed and is ready for forwarding to IESG for publication.
> 
> 
> (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?
> 
> The document has had adequate review from key participants. The Document Shepherd does not have concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews.
> 
> 
> (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?
> 
> The document should undergo the usual Gen-ART and secdir reviews. But otherwise the Document Shepherd does not have concerns over the level and breadth of review for this document.
> 
> (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 document shepherd has no concerns with this document.
> 
> There have been no IPR disclosures on this document. Disclosure number 324 was filed on RFC3920, which this draft along with draft-ietf-xmpp-3920bis intend to obsolete.
> 
> 
> 
> (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?
> 
> Among the people currently active in the WG there is a wide consensus behind the document. No significant objections have been raised to this version of the document.
> 
> (1.f)  Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme
>        discontent?  If so, please summarize 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.)
> 
> Nobody has threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent.
> 
> (1.g)  Has the Document Shepherd personally verified that the
>        document satisfies all ID nits?  (See
>        http://www.ietf.org/ID-Checklist.html 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?  If the document
>        does not already indicate its intended status at the top of
>        the first page, please indicate the intended status here.
> 
> idnits 2.12.05 returns a few warnings that do not appear to be substantive. The Document Shepherd believes that the document contains all needed information.
> 
>  (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].
> 
> The draft contains both normative and informative references. 
> 
> The draft contains a normative dependency on draft-ietf-xmpp-3920bis. We expect that draft to progress together with this draft. 
> 
> The draft contains normative dependencies on RFC 3490 and RFC 3491, which have been obsoleted by 5890 and 5891. The dependency on the obsolete versions is correct, as this draft continues to depend on IDNA-2003. Updating this spec to use IDNA-2008 and replacing the use of stringprep is expected as a future effort.
> 
> The draft contains informative references to draft-ietf-idnabis-defs, draft-ietf-idnabis-protocol, and draft-ietf-newtrk-interop-reports. The referenced drafts were current as of this writing, but if they change prior to publication of this draft, the references should to be updated.
> 
> (1.i)  Has the Document Shepherd verified that the document's IANA
>        Considerations section exists and is consistent with the body
>        of the document?  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 [RFC2434].  If the
>        document describes an Expert Review process, has the Document
>        Shepherd conferred with the Responsible Area Director so that
>        the IESG can appoint the needed Expert during IESG Evaluation?
> 
> The Document Editor believes that the IANA Consideration contains the appropriate information, and is consistent with the rest of the document.
> 
> (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 ABNF, which has been mechanically verified with http://tools.ietf.org/tools/bap/abnf.cgi
> 
> (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 the format for addresses used in the Extensible Messaging and Presence Protocol (XMPP), including support for non-ASCII characters.
> 
> As specified in RFC 3920, the XMPP address format re-uses the "stringprep" technology for preparation of non-ASCII characters, including the Nameprep profile for internationalized domain names, along with two XMPP-specific profiles for the localpart and resourcepart.  However, since the publication of RFC 3920, IDNA2003 has been superseded by IDNA2008 .  As a result, other protocols that use stringprep (including XMPP) have begun to migrate from stringprep toward more "modern" approaches.
> 
> Because work on improved handling of internationalized addresses is currently in progress, specifying the XMPP address format in the specification that obsoletes RFC 3920 would unacceptably delay the revision process.  Therefore, this specification provides updated documentation of the XMPP address format (essentially copied from RFC 3920), with the intent that it can be superseded once work on a new approach to internationalization is complete.
> 
>        Working Group Summary
>           Was there anything in the WG process that is worth noting?
>           For example, was there controversy about particular points
>           or were there decisions where the consensus was
>           particularly rough?
> 
> There is strong consensus in the working group to publish this document.
> 
> There were concerns that the XMPP addressing format (aka JID) depend on internationalization technologies (stringprep) that are currently in flux, and may be in flux for some time. Rather than block progress on this draft, the working group chose to remove the JID definition to a separate draft (this document). This specification continues to use stringprep, but was separated out to make it easier to update in a "modular" fashion once work on a new internationalization approach is complete. 
> 
>        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?
> 
> There are at least 25 server implementations, 50 library implementations, and 100 client implementations of the XMPP RFCs; a partial list is located at <http://xmpp.org/xmpp-software/> (that list does not include "software as a service" implementations hosted by service providers such as Google Talk). Several downloadable software
> implementations in each category have been closely tracking the changes between RFC 3920 and draft-ietf-xmpp-3920bis, and many others are currently being upgraded or are waiting until the replacement RFC is
> published before including the modifications in released software. Interoperability is continually being verified among implementation teams, over the XMPP network, and at more formal interoperability
> testing events sponsored by the XMPP Standards Foundation. It is expected that official implementation reports will be submitted within a year after publication of the revised XMPP RFCs.
> 
>        Personnel
>           Who is the Document Shepherd for this document?  Who is the
>           Responsible Area Director?  If the document requires IANA
>           experts(s), insert 'The IANA Expert(s) for the registries
>           in this document are <TO BE ADDED BY THE AD>.'
> 
> The document shepherd for this document is Ben Campbell.
> 
> The responsible Area Director is Gonzalo Camarillo.
> 
> The IANA Expert(s) for the registries in this document are <TO BE ADDED BY THE AD>.
>