[Top] [All Lists]

Request for advancement, draft-hansen-4468upd-mailesc-registry-04

2008-03-10 15:23:34

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 and  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
     automated checker?

        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:

     Technical Summary

  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.

     Document Quality

        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.

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>
  • Request for advancement, draft-hansen-4468upd-mailesc-registry-04, Harald Tveit Alvestrand <=