Shepherd writeup

1. Summary

The document shepherd is Murray Kucherawy.
The responsible Area Director is Barry Leiba.

This document updates (and thus replaces) the text of RFC3023, which defined
three XML media types.  Proposed Standard status is appropriate for this work.

2. Review and Consensus

The document received review from several APPSAWG participants as well as their
counterparts in the W3C.  There is good consensus to post the draft, though there
was one unsustained objection about the potential for harm.  The document did go
through a period of neglect by the authors, and there was WG attrition (empty
WGLCs), but we recently managed to drive it to the point of being publication-ready.

The unsustained objection was from this message:

Many of the issues identified in that message were addressed in the -06 version
of the draft.  The issue that remained is the choice to make file contents
override protocol elements.  There was no support from other participants that
this is a concern that needed to be addressed in the document; to confirm this,
I specifically asked a couple of people expert in the field (Mark Nottingham,
Larry Masinter) and they felt there was no need for concern.  In early February,
2014, I inquired of the author of that message as to his position, and he conceded
that he appears to be in the rough and thus has not pressed the point further.

It would be nice to have an active XML Directorate from which to request a review
but that seems to have been dormant for a long time.  An early request to AppsDir
for a review was made but it appears this never occurred, though the likely suspects
all took part in the discussion in the WG anyway so this was not pursued.

3. Intellectual Property

There have been no IPR disclosures in the WG, and the authors have affirmed that
they are in compliance with BCPs 78 and 79.

4. Other Points

The document has normative references to RFC2781 (Informational), RFC6839
(Informational),  and a total of eight W3C documents.

The IANA Considerations section looks sound.  It does make reference to "RFC XXXX" which
is meant to be this document when published; this could be better noted for the
RFC Editor in the text.