Subject: [lemonade] Shepherd Write-Up: draft-ncook-urlauth-accessid-02

From: Eric Burger <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 27 Mar 2009 09:32:55 -0700

Document:
Internet Message Access Protocol (IMAP) - URL Access Identifier  
Extension
draft-ncook-urlauth-accessid-02
(Standards Track)

(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. I have personally reviewed this  
version of the document, and it is ready for forwarding to the IESG  
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 is an individual submission.  However, the LEMONADE Work  
Group performed an open pseudo-last call review, including expert  
review by Alexey Melnikov, Dave Cridland, and Arnt Gulbrandsen.

     (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?

None.

     (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.

None.

     (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 for publishing.  This is a small update to URLAUTH  
(RFC 5092).

     (1.f) 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
           entered into the ID Tracker.)

None.

     (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?

Checked with ID nits 2.11.07.  As this document incorporates some RFC  
5092 text, the pre-RFC 5378 disclaimer is appropriate.

     (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].

The document splits the references. All Normative References are at  
least Proposed Standard.  The Informative Reference is the Lemonade  
streaming draft, which has a Normative Reference on this document.   
Thus we hope to progress both documents at the same time.

     (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 [RFC5226]. 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?

Yes, and we have already had an IANA review.

     (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 validated with Bill's ABNF Parser

     (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

    The existing IMAP URL specification (RFC 5092) lists several  
<access>
    identifiers and <access> identifier prefixes, that can be used to
    restrict access to URLAUTH-generated URLs.  However, these
    identifiers do not provide facilities for new services such as
    streaming.  This document proposes a set of new <access> identifiers
    as well as an IANA mechanism to register new <access> identifiers  
for
    future applications.

    This document updates RFC 5092.

           Working Group Summary
Nothing out of the ordinary happened in the WG to note.

           Document Quality
This document received LEMONADE work group review and expert review.