vCard KIND:application
draft-ietf-vcarddav-kind-app-00

[Ballot discuss]
The Gen-ART Review by Roni Even on 29-Oct-2011 raises one concern.
  Please respond to this concern.
 
  I noticed that the example in section 3 is presented as XML, but I
  did not see any text about adding the new kind to the relax NG schema.

  property-kind = element kind { element text { "individual" | "group" | "org" | "location" }* }

[Ballot comment]
From nits checkers:

== Outdated reference: draft-ietf-vcarddav-vcardrev has been published as
    RFC 6350

  == Outdated reference: draft-ietf-vcarddav-vcardxml has been published as
    RFC 6351

[Ballot discuss]
The Gen-ART Review by Roni Even on 29-Oct-2011 raises one concern.
  Please respond to this concern.
 
  I noticed that the example in section 3 is presented as XML, but I
  did not see any text about adding the new kind to the relax NG schema.

  property-kind = element kind { element text { "individual" | "group" | "org" | "location" }* }

Additional info from shepherd:


  (1.a) Who is the Document Shepherd for this document?

Simon Perreault

        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?

Yes.

  (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?

This document has received significant reviews from the community.
The reviews were from usual contributors to the WG. The number of people
was small, but they were representative of the WG given its size.

  (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?


No concerns. The shepherd believes that the XML in the example is correct.

  (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.

No concerns.

        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
        this issue.

None.

  (1.e) How solid is the WG consensus behind this document?

Very solid.
There were no objections. The number of people who were in favour of
this document was representative of the WG, given its small size. Most
of the usual contributors expressed agreement. However, nobody other
than the document author had an immediate need for 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 a good understanding of, and agreement with, this 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.)

No such threats or appeals.

  (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/).

Yes.

        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?

The document does not specify a MIB, media type, or URI, and thus
does not need to meet those review criteria.

  (1.h) Has the document split its references into normative and
        informative?

Yes.

        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 normative references are upward references. All references are to
RFCs (including a reference to draft-ietf-vcarddav-vcardrev which has
been published as RFC 6350).

  (1.i) Has the Document Shepherd verified that the document IANA
        consideration section exists and is consistent with the body
        of the document?

Yes.

        If the document specifies protocol
        extensions, are reservations requested in appropriate IANA
        registries?

Yes.

        Are the IANA registries clearly identified?

Yes.

        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?

The document does not create a new IANA registry.

  (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?


I checked against the schema and found a small error:

OLD:
   
      1
      en
   

NEW:
   
      1
      en
   

  (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:

      Technical Summary
        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
        or introduction.

This document defines a value of "application" for the vCard KIND property so
that vCards can be used to represent software applications. An example use case
is representing an XMPP server.

      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
        rough?

The scope was significantly reduced from "thing" to "application".
Initially the draft proposed an all-encompassing "thing" value. Any
thing represented by a vCard would arguably fit into the "thing" value.
Now the "application" value is constrained with a very specific meaning.
No problems reaching consensus.

      Document Quality
        Are there existing implementations of the protocol?


None known to the shepherd. However, there is indication of use in the
XMPP community: http://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0292.html

        Have a
        significant number of vendors indicated their plan to
        implement the specification?

XMPP implementations are expected to implement the specification,
but no known specific plans.

        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?

They are listed in the acknowledgements section.

        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?

No such reviews were necessary.

State changed to In Last Call from Last Call Requested.

The following Last Call Announcement was sent out:

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC:
Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Last Call:  (vCard KIND:application) to Proposed Standard


The IESG has received a request from the vCard and CardDAV WG (vcarddav)
to consider the following document:
- 'vCard KIND:application'
  as a Proposed Standard

The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the
ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2011-10-20. Exceptionally, comments may be
sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the
beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting.

Abstract


  This document defines a value of "application" for the vCard KIND
  property so that vCards can be used to represent software
  applications.




The file can be obtained via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-vcarddav-kind-app/

IESG discussion can be tracked via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-vcarddav-kind-app/


No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D.

> (1.a) Who is the Document Shepherd for this document?

Simon Perreault

> 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?

Yes.

> (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?

This document has received significant reviews from the community.

> (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?

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.

No concerns.

> 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
> this issue.

None.

> (1.e) How solid is the WG consensus behind this document?

Very solid.

> 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 a good understanding of, and agreement with, this 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.)

No such threats or appeals.

> (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/).

Yes.

> 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?

The document does not specify a MIB, media type, or URI, and thus
does not need to meet those review criteria.

> (1.h) Has the document split its references into normative and
> informative?

Yes.

> 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 normative references are upward references. All references are to
RFCs (including a reference to draft-ietf-vcarddav-vcardrev which has
been published as RFC 6350).

> (1.i) Has the Document Shepherd verified that the document IANA
> consideration section exists and is consistent with the body
> of the document?

Yes.

> If the document specifies protocol
> extensions, are reservations requested in appropriate IANA
> registries?

Yes.

> Are the IANA registries clearly identified?

Yes.

> 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?

The document does not create a new IANA registry.

> (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?

The document contains no such formal language.

> (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:
>
> Technical Summary
> 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
> or introduction.

This document defines a value of "application" for the vCard KIND property so
that vCards can be used to represent software applications. An example use case
is representing an XMPP server.

> 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
> rough?

The scope was significantly reduced from "thing" to "application". No problems
reaching consensus.

> Document Quality
> Are there existing implementations of the protocol?

http://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0292.html

> Have a
> significant number of vendors indicated their plan to
> implement the specification?

XMPP implementations are expected 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?

They are listed in the acknowledgements section.

> 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?

No such reviews were necessary.