Subject: [Ltru] Shepherding writeup for draft-ietf-ltru-4645bis

From: Martin Duerst <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 02 Mar 2009 19:18:45 +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. Due to its nature, the bulk of the document has mostly been
'reviewed' by cross-checking programs.

                                       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. The document mainly contains public data, which isn't security-
relevant. The considerable increase in size of the IANA registry has
been discussed directly with IANA.

    (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?

I don't have any doubt that the WG as a whole understands it and
agrees it, because it makes available several thousand new language
subtags for languages which up to now cannot be tagged. For some
issues (e.g. the treatment of extlangs), there has been intense
discussion with diametrally opposing positions, but we were able
to find a solution that was acceptable to everybody.

    (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 provides content for an actual update of the IANA Language
Subtag Registry. The details are clearly spelled out in the IANA section,
and the most crucial aspects of this update have already been discussed
with IANA.

    (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 bulk of the document is in a format defined in draft-ietf-ltru-4646bis.
I haven't verified this myself, but several members of the WG have,
with their own tools.

    (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 memo defines the procedure used to update the IANA Language
Subtag Registry in conjunction with the publication of
draft-ietf-ltru-4646bis [NOTE: replace with actual RFC number],
for use in forming tags for identifying languages. As an Internet-Draft,
it also contained a complete replacement of the contents of the Registry
to be used by IANA in updating it. This update adds several thousand
language codes to the registry, which will allow these languages to
be identified appropriately on the Internet. To prevent confusion, the
actual registry contents was removed before publication as an RFC.

The WG process for this document was mostly smooth and revolving 
around details. This document also reflects changes defined in
draft-ietf-ltru-4646bis, which are disussed in a separate writeup.

The data contained in the document when it was an Internet Draft
has been read and processed by several tools the implement parsing
of the registry format and additional operations on this data.

Regards,    Martin.

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