Subject: [lemonade] Document Shepherd Write-Up: Lemonade CONVERT

From: Eric Burger <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2008 10:24:46 -0700

(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?

Eric Burger is the document shepherd for this document.
The document is ready for publication.

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

This document was reviewed by multiple active Lemonade WG participants.
Larry Masinter has reviewed IANA registrations regarding validity of reuse
of Media Feature Tag registry established by RFC 2506.  There are no
concerns about depth of the reviews.

   (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?

No concerns.

   (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 WG has discussed those issues and has indicated
          that it still wishes to advance the document, detail those
          concerns here.  Has an IPR disclosure related to this  document
          been filed?  If so, please include a reference to the
          disclosure and summarize the WG discussion and conclusion on
          this issue.

No specific concerns. No IPR disclosure was filed for this document.

   (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?

There is very strong consensus behind the document. At least 6 people
have reviewed the document.

   (1.f)  Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated  extreme
          discontent?  If so, please summarize 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.)
No.

   (1.g)  Has the Document Shepherd personally verified that the
          document satisfies all ID nits?  (See
          http://www.ietf.org/ID-Checklist.html and
          http://tools.ietf.org/tools/idnits/).  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?

IDnits 2.08.04 was used to verify the document. It reported some
warnings and comments regarding undefined references, but the references are
correct.

   (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, references are properly split. There are no downward normative
references.

   (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 suggest a
          reasonable name for the new registry?  See [RFC2434].  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?

The IANA considerations section exists and is clearly defined. It contains
the registration of an IMAP extension and registration of one media type
parameter.

   (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?

ABNF in the document passes Bill Fenner's ABNF validation tool.

   (1.k)  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.

CONVERT defines extensions to IMAP allowing clients to request adaptation
and/or transcoding of attachments.  Clients can specify the conversion
details or allow servers to decide based on knowledge of client
capabilities, on user or administrator preferences or its settings.

   This document is targeted for Proposed Standard.

          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?

The document went through two WGLC, the first one resulted in a major
document rewrite.

After the second WGLC it became clear that there was no consensus on
proposed conversion discovery mechanisms. The editors formally polled the WG
in order to figure out if any particular approach was preferred. Results of
the poll indicated rough consensus in favor of conversion discovery
mechanism using the CONVERSIONS command and AVAILABLECONVERSIONS CONVERT
data item.

          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?

  There is at least 1 existing server implementation and at least 3
other server implementations are planned. At least 2 client implementers
are interested in implementing the specification.

  At least 6 people have reviewed the document. Posted comments were
addressed in the latest revision.

          Personnel
             Who is the Document Shepherd for this document?  Who is  the
             Responsible Area Director?

Eric Burger is the document shepherd for this document.

Notice:  This email message, together with any attachments, may contain information  of  BEA Systems,  Inc.,  its subsidiaries  and  affiliated entities,  that may be confidential,  proprietary,  copyrighted  and/or legally privileged, and is intended solely for the use of the individual or entity named in this message. If you are not the intended recipient, and have received this message in error, please immediately return this by email and then delete it.
_______________________________________________
lemonade mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lemonade
Supplemental Web Site:
http://www.standardstrack.com/ietf/lemonade