Shepherd writeup

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")


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 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 ( 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.