Subject: [Ltru] Publication request for <draft-ietf-ltru-initial-04.txt> as an Informational RFC

From: "Randy Presuhn" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 17 Aug 2005 14:26:42 -0700

Hi -

This questionnaire and write-up is being sent to the responsible
Applications Area Director, Scott Hollenbeck, <[email-masked]>,
and to [email-masked] as a request to publish
<draft-ietf-ltru-initial-04.txt> as an Informational RFC,
with a courtesy copy to the ltru WG at <[email-masked]>.

The shepherding co-chair will be Randy Presuhn, <[email-masked]>.

Here are the questions and answers per
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-proto-wgchair-doc-shepherding-05.txt:

   1.a) Have the chairs personally reviewed this version of the Internet
        Draft (ID), and in particular, do they believe this ID is ready
        to forward to the IESG for publication?

Yes.

   1.b) Has the document had adequate review from both key WG members
        and key non-WG members?  Do you have any concerns about the
        depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed?

The document has been reviewed by several WG members.  We have requested
reviews from several WG non-members, but have not gotten any responses.
We are not concerned about the depth or breadth of the reviews performed.

   1.c) Do you have concerns that the document needs more review from a
        particular (broader) perspective (e.g., security, operational
        complexity, someone familiar with AAA, etc.)?

No.

   1.d) Do you have any specific concerns/issues with this document that
        you believe the ADs and/or IESG should be aware of?  For
        example, perhaps you are uncomfortable with certain parts of the
        document, or have concerns whether there really is a need for
        it.  In any event, if your issues have been discussed in the WG
        and the WG has indicated it that it still wishes to advance the
        document, detail those concerns in the write-up.

No.

   1.e) 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?

Strong consensus of the active participants; have not seen any opposition
to this document.  However, see answers for closely related registry draft.

   1.f) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme
        discontent?  If so, please summarise the areas of conflict in
        separate email to the Responsible Area Director.

No.  However, see answers for the closely related registry draft.

   1.g) Have the chairs verified that the document adheres to all of the
        ID nits? (see http://www.ietf.org/ID-Checklist.html).

Yes.

   1.h) Is the document split into normative and informative references?

Yes.

        Are there normative references to IDs, where the IDs are not
        also ready for advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state?

No.

        (note here that the RFC editor will not publish an RFC with
        normative references to IDs, it will delay publication until all
        such IDs are also ready for publication as RFCs.)

Items 1.i, 1.j, and 1.k are not directly applicable since this is publication
request is for an "Informational"  document.  However, since this would
provide the initial content for a registry, we offer the following, in case it
would be useful:

Technical Summary

   This memo defines the initial contents of the IANA Language Subtag
   Registry for use in forming tags for the identification of languages.
   Since the contents of this memo only serve as a starting point for
   the registry, it is inappropriate to use this memo in lieu of the
   registry.

   This document was produced as part of the effort to develop a
   successor to RFC 3066.

Working Group Summary

   This document is a necessary companion to the primary work item
   of the ltru working group, the specification of the IANA Language
   Subtag Registry.

Protocol Quality

   As mentioned above, this document is merely the delivery vehicle for
   the initial content for the IANA Lanaguage Subtag Registry.  At the
   time of this summary, likely additions ("language synonyms") had
   already been discussed, but the WG agreed that since such changes
   are part of the normal operation of the IANA  Language Subtag Registry,
   they can be handled on [email-masked] after the registry
   has been initialized using the contents of this document.

   The contents were checked against the data from the underlying
   standards and for internal consistency by multiple working group
   members using independent methods.

_______________________________________________
Ltru mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru