Subject: [VCARDDAV] Publication requested, draft-ietf-vcarddav-oma-cab-extensions-02

From: Simon Perreault <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 21 May 2012 15:16:34 -0400

VCARDDAV requests publication of
draft-ietf-vcarddav-oma-cab-extensions-02.

PROTO write-up is below.

Thanks,
Simon

> (1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard,
> Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)?

Proposed Standard

> Why is this the proper type of RFC?

The document defines new protocol elements to be used by interoperable 
implementations.

> Is this type of RFC indicated in the title page header?

Yes.

> (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
>
>   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 extensions to the vCard data format for
    representing and exchanging certain contact information.  The
    properties covered here have been defined by the Open Mobile Alliance
    Converged Address Book group, in order to synchronize, using OMA Data
    Synchronization, contact fields that were not already defined in the
    base vCard 4.0 specification.

> 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?

Initial draft versions have been reviewed by the working group, but then 
the working group fell silent. No comments were received during WGLC. 
Reviews were solicited after WGLC and two thorough reviews have been 
received. The document was then modified after WGLC to address those 
reviews.

> Document Quality
>
>   Are there existing implementations of the protocol? Have a
>   significant number of vendors indicated their plan 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? 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?

This shepherd does not know of any current or future implementations.

> Personnel
>
>   Who is the Document Shepherd? Who is the Responsible Area
>   Director?

Document Shepherd: Simon Perreault
Responsible Area Director: Pete Resnick

> (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.

I have reviewed the document completely. I have also done the same for 
two previous versions. I believe the document is ready for publication.

> (4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or
> breadth of the reviews that have been performed?

No concerns.

> (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.

Several vCard experts have reviewed the document in depth.

> (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.

No concerns at all.

> (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.

Yes.

> (8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document?
> If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR
> disclosures.

No IPR disclosure.

> (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 consensus represents the (small) WG as a whole.

> (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.)

No.

> (11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this
> document. (See http://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts
> Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be
> thorough.

The document seems to lack a both a reference to RFC 2119 and the 
recommended RFC 2119 boilerplate, even if uses RFC 2119 keywords.

> (12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review
> criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.

No such reviews were necessary.

> (13) Have all references within this document been identified as
> either normative or informative?

Yes, and they are all normative.

Note that two OMA documents are used as normative references.

> (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?

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.

No such references.

> (16) Will publication of this document change the status of any
> existing RFCs?

No.

> 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.
>
> (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 5226).

I have reviewed the IANA considerations section. Its content appears 
correct and the registries are clearly identified.

> (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.

No new IANA 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, etc.

BNF checked with Bill Fenner's checker. No errors found.

Error found in an example on page 8 (missing whitespace):

OLD:
        ORG-DIRECTORY;PREF=1:ldap://ldap.tech.example/
        o=Example%20Tech,ou=Engineering

NEW:
        ORG-DIRECTORY;PREF=1:ldap://ldap.tech.example/
         o=Example%20Tech,ou=Engineering