I am hereby requesting that the IESG consider advancing
draft-hansen-4468upd-mailesc-registry-04 to BCP status.
(I choose to apply for BCP status because the major component of the draft
is establishing and initializing an IANA registry.)
As required by RFC-to-be draft-iesg-sponsoring-guidelines,
this is the current template for the Document Shepherd Write-Up
for individual submissions via the IESG.
Changes are expected over time. This version is dated February 5, 2007.
(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?
Harald Tveit Alvestrand <harald(_at_)alvestrand(_dot_)no>
(1.b) Has the document had adequate review both from key members of
the interested community and others? Does the Document Shepherd
have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that
have been performed?
The document has been reviewed on the ietf-smtp mailing list,
which is the same mailing list as used for the SMTP update.
The shepherd believes that review has been adequate.
(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?
(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 interested community has discussed those issues and has
indicated that it still wishes to advance the document, detail
those concerns here.
(1.e) How solid is the consensus of the interested community behind
this document? Does it represent the strong concurrence of a few
individuals, with others being silent, or does the interested
community as a whole understand and agree with it?
There seems to be solid consensus that this document is needed,
and consensus that the current document is adequate.
(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
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?
Note: idnits mentions one obsoleted reference. This is a
deliberate historical reference.
(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].
Yes, no, irrelevant, no.
(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 suggested a reasonable name for the new registry? See
[I-D.narten-iana-considerations-rfc2434bis]. 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?
(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
Yes. There are no such sections.
(1.k) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document
Announcement Write-Up. Please provide such a Document
Announcement Writeup? Recent examples can be found in the
"Action" announcements for approved documents. The approval
announcement contains the following sections:
The specification for enhanced mail system enhanced status codes, RFC
3463, establishes a new code model and lists a collection of status
codes. While it anticipated that more codes would be added over
time, it did not provide an explicit mechanism for registering and
tracking those codes. This document specifies an IANA registry for
mail system enhanced status codes, and initializes that registry with
the codes so far established in published standards-track documents,
as well as other codes that have become established in the industry.
Working Group Summary
This document has been reviewed on the ietf-smtp mailing list.
There have been several comments on details, which have largely
been incorporated, and substantial revisions from the first draft
to this one. No objection to the effort has been made; the
authors have been commended for undertaking the effort.
The document has been reviewed by the mailing list and the document
shepherd. The specific codes described here document existing
practice, except for the newly defined codes that are concerned
with resolving conflicts between multiple usages of codepoints
in present usage.