Shepherd writeup
rfc7578-11

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

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)?

	Proposed Standard

Why is this the proper type of RFC?

	The document update rfc 2388 (if approved)  

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:
  This specification (re)defines the multipart/form-data Internet Media Type,
  defining a general syntax and semantics independent of the application 
  for which this type is used, with specific rules for web applications noted in context.


Working Group Summary:
  There as been extremely low energy in the wg on this draft.
  The document has received only a couple of comments and feedback when
   has been initially submitted, but then only the author has been active to
  update and generating new versions of the draft based  on comments he has mainly
  received externally from people active in W3C and/or WHATWG.
  The wg last call has generated an acceptable amount of mail discussions that have
  produced as result the present version of the document.


Document Quality:
 The document is thought ready to publish. 
 At present to my knowledge (I have also checked with the author) there is no implementation
 of this proposal, neither known plan from vendors to implement it.


Personnel:
  Salvatore Loreto is the Document Shepherd
  Barry Leiba is the Responsible Area Director

(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.

     The document was reviewed against related documents and is thought ready
     to proceed.

(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or
breadth of the reviews that have been performed?  

     No

(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.

     No

(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

(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.

     Larry Masinter - Confirmed

(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document?
If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR
disclosures.

     None known.

(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 wg has express its consensus on adopting this document as wg item.
    A WGLC issued by the wg chairs on 16th September 2014, ended
    with  reviews that resulted in an updated document.

(10) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme 
discontent? 

     No.

(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 document seems to lack a both a reference to RFC 2119 and the
     recommended RFC 2119 boilerplate, even if it appears to use RFC 2119
     keywords.

(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review
criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.

     None

(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?

     OK

(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.

     The document will obsoleted and replace RFC 2388 as listed in the abstract
     and in the rest of the document.


(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).

     The IANA consideration have been reviewed by the shepherd and are consistent.

(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.

     None

Back