Subject: [Ltru] Shepherding writeup for draft-ietf-ltru-4646bis

From: Martin Duerst <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 02 Mar 2009 19:19:07 +0900

[template from http://www.ietf.org/IESG/content/Doc-Writeup.html]

    (1.a) Who is the Document Shepherd for this document?

Martin Duerst ([email-masked], LTRU WG co-chair)

          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?

Yes, I have personally reviewed it, and concluded that this
version is ready for forwarding to the IESG for

    (1.b) Has the document had adequate review both from key WG members 
          and from key non-WG members?

Yes.

                                       Does the Document Shepherd have 
          any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that 
          have been performed?

No.

    (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.

    (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.

There are no specific concerns or issues that I would know of.

    (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?

Overall, I think the whole WG understands it and agrees with it.
There were a few points where there was long-lasting disagreement
and discussion, but for which we found solutions acceptable in
all scenarios. The main such point was the treatment of extlangs.

    (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.)

Yes.

    (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?

Yes for ID nits. MIB, media type, URI considerations don't apply.

    (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 for the split. No for unclear or downward 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 [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?

The document updates the procedures for the IANA Language Subtag Registry
(and the Language Tag Extension registry, which is mostly dormant).
The document contains the following language:

   The Language Subtag Reviewer is appointed by the IESG for an
   indefinite term, subject to removal or replacement at the IESG's
   discretion.  The IESG will solicit nominees for the position (upon
   adoption of this document or upon a vacancy) and then solicit
   feedback on the nominees' qualifications.  Qualified candidates
   should be familiar with BCP 47 and its requirements; be willing to
   fairly, responsively, and judiciously administer the registration
   process; and be suitably informed about the issues of language
   identification so that the reviewer can assess the claims and draw
   upon the contributions of language experts and subtag requesters.

The IESG will therefore have to solicit nominees for this position
again when this document is adopted.

    (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?

The ABNF for language tags in Figure 1 in the previous draft (-20.txt)
has passed http://www.fenron.com/~fenner/abnf.cgi without errors.
There were no changes in the ABNF between -20 and -21, but
www.fenron.com currently doesn't seem to be reachable.

    (1.k) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document 
          Announcement Write-Up. Please provide such a Document 
          Announcement Write-Up?

[there is no need for a question mark here :-]

                                 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. 
          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? 
          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 document describes the structure, content, construction, and
semantics of language tags for use in cases where it is desirable to
indicate the language used in an information object. It also
describes how to register values for use in language tags and the
creation of user-defined extensions for private interchange.
This document is an update of RFC4646. The main change is the
addition of thousands of three-letter language subtags for languages
for which tagging was not possible up to now. Also, the registry
format and procedures were adjusted to deal with this change,
and to reflect experience from current practice.

The WG process for this document was mostly smooth and revolving 
around details. There were some highly contentious issues, but
for all of them, a solution was found that was acceptable to
the involved parties and works for all scenarios identified.

The IANA Language Subtag Registry, and the language tags that can
be formed according to this document and its predecessor, are widely
used across the Internet to identify languages, both in implementations
(code) and in a wide range of data.

Regards,     Martin.

#-#-#  Martin J. Du"rst, Assoc. Professor, Aoyama Gakuin University
#-#-#  http://www.sw.it.aoyama.ac.jp       mailto:[email-masked]