The "file" URI Scheme
draft-ietf-appsawg-file-scheme-16
Revision differences
Document history
Date | Rev. | By | Action |
---|---|---|---|
2017-02-15
|
16 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to AUTH48-DONE from AUTH48 |
2017-02-13
|
16 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to AUTH48 from RFC-EDITOR |
2017-02-02
|
16 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to RFC-EDITOR from EDIT |
2016-12-21
|
16 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to RFC-Ed-Ack from Waiting on RFC Editor |
2016-12-20
|
16 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to Waiting on RFC Editor from Waiting on Authors |
2016-12-20
|
16 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to Waiting on Authors from In Progress |
2016-12-19
|
16 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to In Progress |
2016-12-19
|
16 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to EDIT |
2016-12-19
|
16 | (System) | IESG state changed to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent |
2016-12-19
|
16 | (System) | Announcement was received by RFC Editor |
2016-12-19
|
16 | Cindy Morgan | IESG state changed to Approved-announcement sent from Approved-announcement to be sent::Point Raised - writeup needed |
2016-12-19
|
16 | Cindy Morgan | IESG has approved the document |
2016-12-19
|
16 | Cindy Morgan | Closed "Approve" ballot |
2016-12-19
|
16 | Cindy Morgan | Ballot approval text was generated |
2016-12-16
|
16 | Alexey Melnikov | Ballot comment text updated for Alexey Melnikov |
2016-12-15
|
16 | (System) | IANA Review state changed to Version Changed - Review Needed from IANA OK - Actions Needed |
2016-12-15
|
16 | Matthew Kerwin | New version available: draft-ietf-appsawg-file-scheme-16.txt |
2016-12-15
|
16 | (System) | New version approved |
2016-12-15
|
16 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: "Matthew Kerwin" |
2016-12-15
|
16 | Matthew Kerwin | Uploaded new revision |
2016-12-15
|
15 | Cindy Morgan | IESG state changed to Approved-announcement to be sent::Point Raised - writeup needed from IESG Evaluation |
2016-12-15
|
15 | Alexey Melnikov | [Ballot comment] Alissa volunteered to add some text around the WHATWG URL document reference. |
2016-12-15
|
15 | Alexey Melnikov | Ballot comment text updated for Alexey Melnikov |
2016-12-15
|
15 | Stephen Farrell | [Ballot Position Update] Position for Stephen Farrell has been changed to No Objection from Discuss |
2016-12-15
|
15 | Mirja Kühlewind | Ballot comment text updated for Mirja Kühlewind |
2016-12-15
|
15 | Benoît Claise | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Benoit Claise |
2016-12-15
|
15 | Jari Arkko | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Jari Arkko |
2016-12-14
|
15 | Amanda Baber | IANA Review state changed to IANA OK - Actions Needed from Version Changed - Review Needed |
2016-12-14
|
15 | Kathleen Moriarty | [Ballot comment] I support Stephen's DISCUSS. |
2016-12-14
|
15 | Kathleen Moriarty | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Kathleen Moriarty |
2016-12-14
|
15 | Suresh Krishnan | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Suresh Krishnan |
2016-12-14
|
15 | Deborah Brungard | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Deborah Brungard |
2016-12-14
|
15 | Ben Campbell | [Ballot comment] - I support Stephen's DISCUSS - Section 5: "Implementers MUST research" and "Care MUST be taken" both seem like requirements on people, not … [Ballot comment] - I support Stephen's DISCUSS - Section 5: "Implementers MUST research" and "Care MUST be taken" both seem like requirements on people, not on implementations. Furthermore, "research" and "taking of care" are vague in terms of expected results. Can these be recast into concrete expectations of implementation behavior? |
2016-12-14
|
15 | Ben Campbell | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Ben Campbell |
2016-12-14
|
15 | Alia Atlas | [Ballot comment] I haven't heard the details of Stephen's Discuss. |
2016-12-14
|
15 | Alia Atlas | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Alia Atlas |
2016-12-13
|
15 | Spencer Dawkins | [Ballot comment] I also support Stephen's Discuss (which is pretty much "we need to explicitly decide whether we can live with this", as I understand … [Ballot comment] I also support Stephen's Discuss (which is pretty much "we need to explicitly decide whether we can live with this", as I understand it). |
2016-12-13
|
15 | Spencer Dawkins | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Spencer Dawkins |
2016-12-13
|
15 | Alissa Cooper | [Ballot comment] I support Stephen's DISCUSS. |
2016-12-13
|
15 | Alissa Cooper | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Alissa Cooper |
2016-12-13
|
15 | Mirja Kühlewind | [Ballot comment] 'not' missing? s/It would be impossible for this specification to list all such significant characters and device names. /It would not … [Ballot comment] 'not' missing? s/It would be impossible for this specification to list all such significant characters and device names. /It would not be impossible for this specification to list all such significant characters and device names. / |
2016-12-13
|
15 | Mirja Kühlewind | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Mirja Kühlewind |
2016-12-13
|
15 | Stephen Farrell | [Ballot discuss] Appendix C: this spec and the whatwg web page may or may not be in conflict. I think this may be the first … [Ballot discuss] Appendix C: this spec and the whatwg web page may or may not be in conflict. I think this may be the first PS that we've produced where that fact finally hits that fan - is that right? If not, then I'll clear as we'll already have decided there's nothing to be done about odd behaviour with "competing" specifications for the same thing (that thing being RFC3986). If this is the first time we've gotten to this point, then I think the IESG ought explicitly decide that we are going to live with what we all know is a pretty crap situation where different implementers (web vs. non-web basically) supporting various kinds of URL/URI are liable to end up doing different and potentially non-interoperable things. (There is no action required from the author. For the IESG - we discussed this a couple of years back, but there have been some personnel changes since and I forget if the current set of ADs are or are not up to speed with and ok with this.) |
2016-12-13
|
15 | Stephen Farrell | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded for Stephen Farrell |
2016-12-13
|
15 | Alexey Melnikov | [Ballot comment] I believ GenArt and SecDir nits were addressed. |
2016-12-13
|
15 | Alexey Melnikov | Ballot comment text updated for Alexey Melnikov |
2016-12-12
|
15 | (System) | IANA Review state changed to Version Changed - Review Needed from IANA - Not OK |
2016-12-12
|
15 | Matthew Kerwin | New version available: draft-ietf-appsawg-file-scheme-15.txt |
2016-12-12
|
15 | (System) | New version approved |
2016-12-12
|
15 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: "Matthew Kerwin" |
2016-12-12
|
15 | Matthew Kerwin | Uploaded new revision |
2016-12-12
|
14 | Gunter Van de Velde | Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR Completed: Ready. Reviewer: Tianran Zhou. |
2016-12-12
|
14 | Alvaro Retana | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Alvaro Retana |
2016-12-11
|
14 | Alexey Melnikov | [Ballot comment] A revision to address GenArt and SecDir nits is needed. |
2016-12-11
|
14 | Alexey Melnikov | Ballot comment text updated for Alexey Melnikov |
2016-12-11
|
14 | Alexey Melnikov | IESG state changed to IESG Evaluation from Waiting for AD Go-Ahead |
2016-12-08
|
14 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Last Call review by GENART Completed: Almost Ready. Reviewer: Christer Holmberg. |
2016-12-06
|
14 | (System) | IESG state changed to Waiting for AD Go-Ahead from In Last Call |
2016-12-01
|
14 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR Completed: Has Nits. Reviewer: Barry Leiba. |
2016-12-01
|
14 | Joel Jaeggli | [Ballot comment] Zhoutianran performed the opsdir review. |
2016-12-01
|
14 | Joel Jaeggli | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Joel Jaeggli |
2016-11-30
|
14 | (System) | IANA Review state changed to IANA - Not OK from IANA - Review Needed |
2016-11-30
|
14 | Amanda Baber | (Via drafts-lastcall@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs: The IANA Services Operator has completed its review of draft-ietf-appsawg-file-scheme-14. If any part of this review is inaccurate, please let … (Via drafts-lastcall@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs: The IANA Services Operator has completed its review of draft-ietf-appsawg-file-scheme-14. If any part of this review is inaccurate, please let us know. The IANA Services Operator has a question about one of the registry actions requested in the IANA Considerations section of this document. The IANA Services Operator understands that, upon approval of this document, there is a single action which we must complete. In the Uniform Resource Identifier (URI) Schemes registry located at: https://www.iana.org/assignments/uri-schemes/ there is an existing registration for the URI scheme: file The existing reference for this registration is [RFC 1738]. IANA Question --> Should the existing reference be replaced with [RFC-to-be], or should [RFC-to-be] be added to the existing reference? NOTE: Because this is a permanent registration, we're asking the IESG-designated registry expert to confirm that this update is OK. The IANA Services Operator understands that this is the only action required to be completed upon approval of this document. Note: The actions requested in this document will not be completed until the document has been approved for publication as an RFC. This message is only to confirm what actions will be performed. Thank you, Amanda Baber Lead IANA Services Specialist PTI |
2016-11-28
|
14 | Alexey Melnikov | The IANA registration template in Section 6 is actually Ok, my mistake earlier for flagging this as incomplete. |
2016-11-25
|
14 | Alexey Melnikov | Ballot has been issued |
2016-11-25
|
14 | Alexey Melnikov | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Alexey Melnikov |
2016-11-25
|
14 | Alexey Melnikov | Created "Approve" ballot |
2016-11-25
|
14 | Alexey Melnikov | Ballot writeup was changed |
2016-11-25
|
14 | Alexey Melnikov | Placed on agenda for telechat - 2016-12-15 |
2016-11-25
|
14 | Alexey Melnikov | Changed consensus to Yes from Unknown |
2016-11-25
|
14 | Alexey Melnikov | Section 6 still doesn't include all IANA registration template fields specified in RFC 7595, Section 7.4, but my other comment was addressed. |
2016-11-24
|
14 | Matthew Kerwin | New version available: draft-ietf-appsawg-file-scheme-14.txt |
2016-11-24
|
14 | (System) | New version approved |
2016-11-24
|
14 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: "Matthew Kerwin" |
2016-11-24
|
14 | Matthew Kerwin | Uploaded new revision |
2016-11-24
|
13 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Barry Leiba |
2016-11-24
|
13 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Barry Leiba |
2016-11-23
|
13 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Christer Holmberg |
2016-11-23
|
13 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Christer Holmberg |
2016-11-23
|
13 | Gunter Van de Velde | Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR is assigned to Tianran Zhou |
2016-11-23
|
13 | Gunter Van de Velde | Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR is assigned to Tianran Zhou |
2016-11-22
|
13 | Amy Vezza | IANA Review state changed to IANA - Review Needed |
2016-11-22
|
13 | Amy Vezza | The following Last Call announcement was sent out: From: The IESG To: "IETF-Announce" CC: alexey.melnikov@isode.com, art@ietf.org, dcrocker@bbiw.net, draft-ietf-appsawg-file-scheme@ietf.org, appsawg-chairs@ietf.org Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org … The following Last Call announcement was sent out: From: The IESG To: "IETF-Announce" CC: alexey.melnikov@isode.com, art@ietf.org, dcrocker@bbiw.net, draft-ietf-appsawg-file-scheme@ietf.org, appsawg-chairs@ietf.org Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org Sender: Subject: Last Call: (The file URI Scheme) to Proposed Standard The IESG has received a request from the ART Area General Applications Working Group WG (appsawg) to consider the following document: - 'The file URI Scheme' as Proposed Standard The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2016-12-06. Exceptionally, comments may be sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting. Abstract This document specifies the "file" Uniform Resource Identifier (URI) scheme, replacing the definition in RFC 1738. It defines a common syntax which is intended to interoperate across the broad spectrum of existing usages. At the same time it notes some other current practices around the use of file URIs. Note to Readers (To be removed by the RFC Editor) This draft should be discussed on the IETF Applications Area Working Group discussion list . The file can be obtained via https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-appsawg-file-scheme/ IESG discussion can be tracked via https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-appsawg-file-scheme/ballot/ No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D. |
2016-11-22
|
13 | Amy Vezza | IESG state changed to In Last Call from Last Call Requested |
2016-11-22
|
13 | Alexey Melnikov | Last call was requested |
2016-11-22
|
13 | Alexey Melnikov | Last call announcement was generated |
2016-11-22
|
13 | Alexey Melnikov | Ballot approval text was generated |
2016-11-22
|
13 | Alexey Melnikov | Ballot writeup was generated |
2016-11-22
|
13 | Alexey Melnikov | IESG state changed to Last Call Requested from AD Evaluation |
2016-11-22
|
13 | Alexey Melnikov | My AD review: 1) In Section 4: When a file URI is produced, characters not allowed by the syntax in Section 2 SHOULD be … My AD review: 1) In Section 4: When a file URI is produced, characters not allowed by the syntax in Section 2 SHOULD be percent-encoded as characters using UTF-8 encoding, as per [RFC3986], Section 2.5. This text is confusing. Are you trying to say that first Unicode characters are encoded in UTF-8 and then that non-ASCII octets are percent encoded? 2) Section 6 doesn't include all IANA registration template fields specified in RFC 7595, Section 7.4. |
2016-11-20
|
13 | Alexey Melnikov | IESG state changed to AD Evaluation from Publication Requested |
2016-11-12
|
13 | Dave Crocker | Document Shepherd: D. Crocker (1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? Why is this the … Document Shepherd: D. Crocker (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? Standards Track. This document specifies a common format to be used on the Internet. It builds on related work that is already in use. The intended status is on the header. (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 specifies the "file" Uniform Resource Identifier (URI) scheme, replacing the definition in RFC 1738. It defines a common syntax which is intended to interoperate across the broad spectrum of existing usages. It also notes some other current practices around the use of file URIs. 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 work was done in the Apps Area Working group and has received significant community comment, with multiple revisions resulting. Support for the work appears solid. [CHAIR and SHEPHERD NOTE: This document went through two WGLCs. The first one yielded some input but the document shepherd review identified numerous issues that resulted in a flurry of other review traffic and document revisions. A second WGLC was then done that yielded no feedback at all. We suspect this is a result of wandered interest (since APPSAWG is closing) rather than any indication that the document is not sound or does not have consensus to proceed.] Document Quality Document development had some coordination with the W3C community, which can be expected to use this work. Personnel Who is the Document Shepherd? Who is the Responsible Area Director? Document Shepherd: D. Crocker Responsible AD: Alexey Melnikov Process management: M. Kucherawy (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 did an extensive review on the first Last Call's version, and this prompted substantial additional community discussion and input, as well as significant revisions to the specification. There have been two revisions since then and, in my opinion, the current version is now focused and clear, and resolves the concerns that were raised. The file: scheme is of obvious utility and this revised specification should be quite helpful. (4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed? I am now comfortable with the depth and breadth of reviews that have been done. (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. I am not aware of any 'coordinating' reviews that are needed at this point. (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. No specific concerns or issues. (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. No special IPR concerns are present. (8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures. No related IPR statements have been filed. (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? The work was a short-term effort in the Apps Area WG. Such efforts typically do not accrue very large numbers of participants. That said, this document had input that was varied in kind and sources. I believe resulting support 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 concerns about document process or content. (11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this document. (See https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be thorough. No nits. (12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews. No special review requirements. (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 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 WG 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). IANA section looks good to me. (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. None. (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. I reviewed the contained ABNF carefully. d/ |
2016-11-12
|
13 | Murray Kucherawy | Document Shepherd: D. Crocker Changes are expected over time. This version is dated 24 February 2012. (1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, … Document Shepherd: D. Crocker Changes are expected over time. This version is dated 24 February 2012. (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? Standards Track. This document specifies a common format to be used on the Internet. It builds on related work that is already in use. The intended status is on the header. (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 specifies the "file" Uniform Resource Identifier (URI) scheme, replacing the definition in RFC 1738. It defines a common syntax which is intended to interoperate across the broad spectrum of existing usages. It also notes some other current practices around the use of file URIs. 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 work was done in the Apps Area Working group and has received significant community comment, with multiple revisions resulting. Support for the current version appears solid. [CHAIR NOTE: This document went through two WGLCs. The first one yielded some input but the document shepherd review identified numerous issues that resulted in a flurry of other review traffic and document revisions. A second WGLC was then done that yielded no feedback at all. We suspect this is a result of wandered interest (since APPSAWG is closing) rather than any indication that the document is not sound or does not have consensus to proceed.] Document Quality Document development had some coordination with the W3C community, which can be expected to use this work. Personnel Who is the Document Shepherd? Who is the Responsible Area Director? Document Shepherd: D. Crocker Responsible AD: Alexey Melnikov Process management: M. Kucherawy (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 did an extensive review on a Last Call version that prompted substantial additional community discussion and input, as well as significant revisions to the specification. In my opinion, the current version is now focused and clear. The file: scheme is of obvious utility and this revised specification should be quite helpful. (4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed? I am now comfortable with the depth and breadth of reviews that have been done. (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. I am not aware of any 'coordinating' reviews that are needed at this point. (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. No specific concerns or issues. (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. No special IPR concerns are present. (8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures. No related IPR statements have been filed. (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? The work was a short-term effort in the Apps Area WG. Such efforts typically do not accrue very large numbers of participants. That said, this document had input that was varied in kind and sources. I believe resulting support 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 concerns about document process or content. (11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this document. (See https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be thorough. No nits. (12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews. No special review requirements. (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 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 WG 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). IANA section looks good to me. (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. None. (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. I reviewed the contained ABNF carefully. d/ |
2016-11-12
|
13 | Murray Kucherawy | Responsible AD changed to Alexey Melnikov |
2016-11-12
|
13 | Murray Kucherawy | IETF WG state changed to Submitted to IESG for Publication from Waiting for WG Chair Go-Ahead |
2016-11-12
|
13 | Murray Kucherawy | IESG state changed to Publication Requested |
2016-11-12
|
13 | Murray Kucherawy | IESG process started in state Publication Requested |
2016-11-12
|
13 | Murray Kucherawy | Changed document writeup |
2016-11-12
|
13 | Murray Kucherawy | Tag Doc Shepherd Follow-up Underway cleared. |
2016-11-12
|
13 | Murray Kucherawy | Changed document writeup |
2016-11-12
|
13 | Murray Kucherawy | Tag Doc Shepherd Follow-up Underway set. |
2016-11-12
|
13 | Murray Kucherawy | IETF WG state changed to Waiting for WG Chair Go-Ahead from In WG Last Call |
2016-10-10
|
13 | Matthew Kerwin | New version available: draft-ietf-appsawg-file-scheme-13.txt |
2016-10-10
|
13 | (System) | New version approved |
2016-10-10
|
12 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: "Matthew Kerwin" |
2016-10-10
|
12 | Matthew Kerwin | Uploaded new revision |
2016-08-14
|
12 | Murray Kucherawy | Tag Doc Shepherd Follow-up Underway cleared. |
2016-08-14
|
12 | Murray Kucherawy | Second WGLC ends August 26, 2016. |
2016-08-14
|
12 | Murray Kucherawy | IETF WG state changed to In WG Last Call from WG Document |
2016-08-14
|
12 | Dave Crocker | Changed document writeup |
2016-08-14
|
12 | Matthew Kerwin | New version available: draft-ietf-appsawg-file-scheme-12.txt |
2016-06-12
|
11 | Matthew Kerwin | New version available: draft-ietf-appsawg-file-scheme-11.txt |
2016-05-30
|
10 | Matthew Kerwin | New version available: draft-ietf-appsawg-file-scheme-10.txt |
2016-05-14
|
09 | Matthew Kerwin | New version available: draft-ietf-appsawg-file-scheme-09.txt |
2016-04-22
|
08 | Matthew Kerwin | New version available: draft-ietf-appsawg-file-scheme-08.txt |
2016-04-19
|
07 | Murray Kucherawy | Tag Revised I-D Needed - Issue raised by WG cleared. |
2016-04-19
|
07 | Murray Kucherawy | IETF WG state changed to WG Document from WG Consensus: Waiting for Write-Up |
2016-04-19
|
07 | Matthew Kerwin | New version available: draft-ietf-appsawg-file-scheme-07.txt |
2016-04-12
|
06 | Murray Kucherawy | Document shepherd review identified numerous issues. |
2016-04-12
|
06 | Murray Kucherawy | Tag Revised I-D Needed - Issue raised by WG set. |
2016-04-11
|
06 | Matthew Kerwin | New version available: draft-ietf-appsawg-file-scheme-06.txt |
2015-11-30
|
05 | Matthew Kerwin | New version available: draft-ietf-appsawg-file-scheme-05.txt |
2015-11-22
|
04 | Murray Kucherawy | Tag Doc Shepherd Follow-up Underway set. |
2015-11-22
|
04 | Murray Kucherawy | IETF WG state changed to WG Consensus: Waiting for Write-Up from In WG Last Call |
2015-11-01
|
04 | Murray Kucherawy | WGLC ends November 20, 2015. |
2015-11-01
|
04 | Murray Kucherawy | IETF WG state changed to In WG Last Call from WG Document |
2015-11-01
|
04 | Matthew Kerwin | New version available: draft-ietf-appsawg-file-scheme-04.txt |
2015-10-14
|
03 | (System) | Notify list changed from "Dave Crocker" to (None) |
2015-07-23
|
03 | Matthew Kerwin | New version available: draft-ietf-appsawg-file-scheme-03.txt |
2015-05-28
|
02 | Matthew Kerwin | New version available: draft-ietf-appsawg-file-scheme-02.txt |
2015-04-16
|
01 | Murray Kucherawy | Notification list changed to "Dave Crocker" <dcrocker@bbiw.net> |
2015-04-16
|
01 | Murray Kucherawy | Document shepherd changed to Dave Crocker |
2015-04-14
|
01 | Matthew Kerwin | New version available: draft-ietf-appsawg-file-scheme-01.txt |
2015-01-11
|
00 | Murray Kucherawy | Intended Status changed to Proposed Standard from None |
2015-01-11
|
00 | Murray Kucherawy | This document now replaces draft-kerwin-file-scheme instead of None |
2015-01-11
|
00 | Matthew Kerwin | New version available: draft-ietf-appsawg-file-scheme-00.txt |