Subject: Document advancement DNSEXT: Case Insensitive

From: Ólafur Gudmundsson/DNSEXT co-chair <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 10 Nov 2004 11:04:00 -0500

Thomas,

Please advance Case Insensitive clarification on the standards track:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-dnsext-insensitive-04.txt.

	1. Have the chairs personally reviewed this version of the ID
	and do they believe this ID is sufficiently baked to forward
	to the IESG for publication?

Yes, we have read this document and it has been reviewed and
revised.

	2. 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?

Yes, key members of DNSEXT a have read this document.
As this document was created to address a narrow non-controversial
issue that was from identified during the review of RFC3597, this issue
has clear base and purpose.

	3. Do you have concerns that the document needs more review from
	a particular (broader) perspective?

In theory this document should be reviewed by people that are experts
in non English languages as it border line touches on how these are
represented in DNS. But as IDN has addressed that there is no further
review needed.

	4. Do you have any specific concerns/issues with this document
	that you believe the ADs and/or IESG should be aware of?

The only concern with the document, is that the educational/background
sections may draw more interest and discussion than the actual DNS
Protocol content of the document.

	5. 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 working group consensus is solid. The WG has only raised issues with
the semantics and structure of the document not content.

	6. Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated
	extreme discontent?  If so, please summarize what are they upset about.

No

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

The document adheres to most of the ID nits with the exception that
some of the IPR statements required by RFC3668 are non compliant.
There are no IPR issues possible with this document.
We request that the editor  fix the IPR statement at the same time as he
addresses any nits brought up during AD review.

	8. Does the document a) split references into normative/informative,
	and b) are there normative references to IDs, where the IDs are
	not also ready for advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state?

References are split, and all normative references are RFCs.

	9. For Standards Track and BCP documents, the IESG approval
	announcement includes a write up section with the following
        sections:

Technical Summary:
    RFC1034/5 was written when US-ASCII was the only language used on
    on the Internet. For this reason some corner cases related to case
    folding where not thought out. This document nails down these corner
    cases. The action of the document is to explicitly say only
    case folding only applies to letters in the A-Z range.
    This is the only guaranteed 100% inter operable solution.

Working Group Summary

    The document being advanced has been reviewed, it is non-controversial
    and will not change any implementations or practices.

Protocol Quality:
    This is quality document. The protocol change is minimal.

	Olafur & Olaf 

--
to unsubscribe send a message to [email-masked] with
the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.
archive: <http://ops.ietf.org/lists/namedroppers/>