PROTO writeup for draft-ietf-appsawg-rfc3536bis-02
The Applications Area Working Group requests the publication of draft-ietf-appsawg-rfc3536bis-02 as a BCP, obsoleting RFC 3536, which is Informational.
(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?
Barry Leiba is the document shepherd. I have reviewed this version, and am satisfied that it's ready.
(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 adequate review, on the IDNAbis and EAI lists and then on the apps-discuss list, and I have no concerns.
(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?
I have 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. 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
I have no concerns. There is no IPR involved.
(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?
There is consensus of the working group behind it, not just "a few". That said, internationalization is a very specialized topic, and the majority of Applications Area participants are not well versed in it, and have not commented on the 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.)
(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/). 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?
I have verified it with idnits version 2.12.12. It is fine.
(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].
All references are properly separated and labelled. This document, by its nature, has a number of references to documents from other bodies -- ISO, the Unicode Consortium, W3C, and ANSI. Two of those references are normative. They were normative in the original document as well, and are updated here:
ISO/IEC, "ISO/IEC 10646-1:2003. International Standard --
Information technology - Universal Multiple-Octet Coded
Character Set (UCS)", 2003.
[UNICODE] The Unicode Consortium, "The Unicode Standard, Version
6.0", Mountain View, CA: The Unicode Consortium,
2011. ISBN 978-1-936213-01-6)., 2011,
(1.i) Has the Document Shepherd verified that the document IANA
consideration 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 [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?
There are no IANA issues with this document, and the IANA Considerations section says that.
(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?
There is no formal language in this document.
(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:
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
This document provides a glossary of terms used in the IETF when discussing internationalization. The purpose is to help frame discussions of internationalization in the various areas of the IETF and to help introduce the main concepts to IETF participants.
This document gives an overview of internationalization as it applies to IETF standards work by lightly covering the many aspects of internationalization and the vocabulary associated with those topics. Some of the overview is a somewhat tuturial in nature. It is not meant to be a complete description of internationalization. The definitions in this document are not normative for IETF standards; however, they are useful and standards may make informative reference to this document after it becomes an RFC. Some of the definitions in this document come from many earlier IETF documents and books.
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
Not surprisingly for a document such as this, there were many suggestions of terminology to include, and of alternative definitions to the ones included. The editors have done a good job of striking a necessary balance between an overly bloated document and one that includes the right set of terms, with definitions that reflect reasonable consensus, if not always unanimity. There were a number of such discussions, with none bearing particular mention here.
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?
This document replaces RFC 3536, cleaning up and updating many of the definitions therein. RFC 3536 has been in use for eight years, and this document reflects that maturity and what we've learned about the gaps in the terminology and definitions over that time. Section 7 is a significant new section that talks about IDNA work done since RFC 3536.