Subject: [precis] Document Shepherd Write-Up for draft-ietf-precis-problem-statement-08

From: Peter Saint-Andre <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2012 12:23:46 -0600

Dear Pete (PRECIS WG cc'd, IESG secretary bcc'd):

In accordance with RFC 4858, here is the Document Shepherd Write-Up for
"Stringprep Revision and PRECIS Problem Statement"
(draft-ietf-precis-problem-statement-08).

Peter

###

Specification: draft-ietf-precis-problem-statement-08
Shepherd: Peter Saint-Andre
Date: 2012-09-20

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

  Informational.

Why is this the proper type of RFC?

  The document does not define any protocol and thus is not
  appropriate for the standards track. Informational is the
  usual type for problem statements.

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

  If a protocol expects to compare two strings and is prepared
  only for those strings to be ASCII, then using Unicode
  codepoints in those strings requires they be prepared somehow.
  Internationalizing Domain Names in Applications (here called
  IDNA2003) defined and used Stringprep and Nameprep.  Other
  protocols subsequently defined Stringprep profiles.  A new
  approach different from Stringprep and Nameprep is used for
  a revision of IDNA2003 (called IDNA2008).  Other Stringprep
  profiles need to be similarly updated or a replacement of
  Stringprep needs to be designed.  This document outlines the
  issues to be faced by those designing a Stringprep replacement.

Working Group Summary

  The document records the consensus from discussion at the
  NEWPREP BoF (IETF 77, March 2010) and the resulting PRECIS WG
  regarding the problem to be solved in developing a replacement
  for the Stringprep technology in application protocols other
  than IDNA. There has not been controversy about the nature of
  the problem to be solved, and consensus was not rough.

Document Quality

  The document has provided a clear basis for work on the
  proposed PRECIS framework, and thus has served its purpose.

Personnel

  The Document Shepherd is Peter Saint-Andre.

  The Responsible Area Director is 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 each iteration of the document while it was
  under development in the working group. I have also more
  carefully reviewed the version (08) being forwarded to the IESG.
  In my opinion, the document accurately reflects the consensus
  of the working group and is ready for publication (although on
  a final reading I noticed some small but obvious linguistic
  errors, suitable for correction by the RFC Editor).

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

  The document has been reviewed by a number of knowledgeable
  participants within the PRECIS WG. I do not have concerns
  about the depth or breadth of review. Naturally, the protocol
  specifications that attempt to solve the problems outlined in
  this document will require more thorough review.

(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.

  The entire document discusses internationalization, albeit in
  an informational fashion. Based on my experience with the topic,
  I conclude that the document is well within the bounds of good
  practices for internationalization, for instance by building on
  the work already completed in the IDNA2008 effort. In my opinion,
  no more specialized or broad reviews are needed with regard to
  this informational problem statement.

(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.

  It is important to publish this document so as to provide a
  foundation for the working group's protocol development. The
  area of work is complex, making a problem statement all the
  more valuable. I was uncomfortable with the fact that a prior
  version of this document foreshadowed the proposed solution by
  recommending particular string classes, but that text was
  removed (appropriately, I think) and thus I am now comfortable
  with the document in its entirety.

(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.

  As document shepherd I have confirmed that the authors are not
  personally aware of any IPR related to this document.

(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 disclosures have been filed in relation to this document.

(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?

  With the caveat that the PRECIS WG (as is true of other working
  groups focused on internationalization) does not contain a large
  number of participants, let alone active participants, I would say
  that the WG consensus for publishing this document is solid.

(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.)

  I am not aware of any threatened appeals or areas of significant
  conflict regarding this document.

(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 nits triggered by version -07 have been fixed in -08.

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

  No formal reviews were appropriate for this problem statement.

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

  Given that the document itself is informative, no normative
  references were appropriate and all of the references are
  informative.

(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?

  There are no normative 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.

  There are no downward normative references.

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

  This document does not change the status of any existing RFCs.

(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).

  This document has no actions for the IANA, and that is correct.

(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 registries are to be created by this document.

(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.

  Not applicable.

END

###