Changes are expected over time. This version is dated 1 November 2019.
(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?
The expected status is "informational". This is indicated on the title page.
This is the appropriate status since this draft obsoletes RFC 4329, which was
also informational. It also updates several media-type registrations, which
requires IESG approval--an informational RFC seems appropriate for that purpose.
(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 updates the ECMAScript media types to prefer "text/javascript",
obsoletes other related media types, and introduces the new .mjs extension for
JavaScript modules in order to align with implementation experience and
industry practice. This document obsoletes RFC4329, "Scripting Media Types".
Working Group Summary:
When this document was adopted by DISPATCH, it was a fairly simple update of
RFC 4329 to update the IANA registrations to prefer "text/javascript" and to
mark other related media types as "OBSOLETE". The draft was changed to obsolete
RFC 4329 due to WGLC feedback. That document has issues primarily related to
how one determines text encoding and the use of file extensions to determine
whether content should be interpreted as a module or script. This draft makes
minor updates to that original text to align with current operational reality,
but it does not attempt to "fix" them in ways that do not reflect current
practice. This resulted in some discontent among reviewers who would prefer
cleaner fixes vs. document existing practice.
There have also been discontent about unnecessary and somewhat convoluted
normative language in RFC 4329. This draft does not attempt to fix that in
general, although it has made some simplifications in the text about
determining the character-encoding scheme.
Document Quality:
The procedures in the draft are understood by this shepherd to be implemented
by most web browsers.
The draft has undergone i18n and media-type reviews. John Levine performed a
helpful early i18n review of version 07 on 8 May 2020. That review and follow
on discussion resulted in improvements in version 08. The draft was posted to
the media-type mailing list on 17 May, 2021. The resulting media-type
discussion mainly rehashed issues already discussed (see "Working Group
Summary")
Personnel:
The responsible AD is Francesca Palombini. The shepherd is Ben Campbell.
(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 shepherd performed a detailed review, and believes this version is ready
for IESG consideration. The shepherd does think the abstract should be
updated, and will convey that to the authors. [Update: Version 09 updates the
abstract and resolves my concern.] The shepherd also stumbled on some of the
normative language mentioned in the "Working Group Summary", but recognized
that said text came from RFC 4329 and fixing it is not really in scope for this
document.
(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of
the reviews that have been performed?
The shepherd thinks this document has been reviewed to the point of diminishing
returns (And expects some of the same issues to be rehashed in IETF last call.)
(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.
The draft has received i18n and media-type review. Please see the "Document
Quality" section for details.
(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.
The shepherd is concerned that future reviews will continue to thrash over the
determination of character encoding and content intent. Reviewers should keep
in mind that the procedures in this draft are widely implemented, and
non-backwards-compatible changes are not likely to be implemented.
(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?
Each author has confirmed that they are not aware of undisclosed IPR.
(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If so,
summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures.
There have been no IPR disclosures.
(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 consensus represents a compromise among the authors and a small number
of expert participants.
(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.)
While there has been some general discontent as mentioned above, the shepherd
is not aware of any intent to appeal.
(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 shepherd is not aware of any nits beyond the previous comment about the
abstract. Idnits 2.16.04 gives it a clean report. [Update: The comment about
the abstract is resolved in version 09]
(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such
as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.
The draft was posted to the media type mailing list as required.
(13) Have all references within this document been identified as either
normative or informative?
All references are so categorized.
(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?
There are no such references.
(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.
There are no normative downrefs. (The draft is expected to be informational )
(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.
This draft will obsolete RFC 4329, as indicated in all the places.
(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 8126).
The IANA considerations section appears to be consistent with the document. The
referenced IANA registry is clear. This draft does not create new registries.
(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.
This draft does not create new registries.
(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, YANG modules, etc.
The draft does not use of formal languages.
(20) If the document contains a YANG module, has the module been checked with
any of the recommended validation tools
(https://trac.ietf.org/trac/ops/wiki/yang-review-tools) for syntax and
formatting validation? If there are any resulting errors or warnings, what is
the justification for not fixing them at this time? Does the YANG module comply
with the Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA) as specified in
RFC8342?
The draft does not include a YANG module.