Subject: [apps-discuss] Publication request:draft-faltstrom-5892bis-04

From: "Jiankang YAO" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 17 May 2011 11:11:41 +0800

Dear ADs,

This message is a request to publish
draft-faltstrom-5892bis-04 on the Standards Track.
The draft represents the rough consensus of the APPSAWG Working
Group.

As required by RFC 4858, below is the completed current template for
the Document Shepherd Write-Up.

Best regards,
Jiankang Yao(as a co-chair of APPSAWG)

--------------------------------------------

DRAFT FILENAME: 
    draft-faltstrom-5892bis-04
TITLE: 
   The Unicode code points and IDNA - Unicode 6.0

  (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? 

Jiankang Yao.  Yes, I believe it is ready.

  (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?

There has a lot of discussions and an informal last call for comments about
this draft in the IDNAbis list [email-masked].  
The APPSAWG has been talking about this draft for some time.  I believe it
has had adequate review.  
  
  (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. 

This draft is a document that updates RFC 5892 by
 stating nothing is to be changed with respect to Unicode
 version 6. The IESG needs to decide whether this document
 should be marked as "updating" RFC 5892 or not.

  (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?   

Many WG participants from IDNAbis and APPSAWG have reviewed this document and
 had reasonably strong WG consensus.

  (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.) 

No.

  (1.g) Has the Document Shepherd personally verified that the 
        document satisfies all ID nits? (See the Internet-Drafts Checklist 
        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, I have checked it. There is one unused reference; see 1.h.

  (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 references are correct.  There are two references to non-IETF
documents (Unicode 5.2 and Unicode 6.0), and those are necessary and
correct.

"Unicode6" is listed as a normative reference, but
it is never referenced in the main text although "Unicode 6.0" is
used everywhere.  Please add the following RFC Editor note:
---
Introduction, first paragraph:
OLD
   it defines a derived property value.  Unicode 6.0 has changed
   GeneralCategory of three code points that where allocated in Unicode
NEW
   it defines a derived property value.  Unicode 6.0 [Unicode6] has changed
   GeneralCategory of three code points that where allocated in Unicode
---

  (1.i) Has the Document Shepherd verified that the document IANA 
        consideration section exists and is consistent with the body 
        of the document? 

Yes.

        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? 

N/A.

  (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? 

There is no formal language in this document.

  (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 

This document specifies IETF consensus for IDNA derived character
properties related to the three code points, existing in Unicode 5.2,
that changed property values when version 6.0 was released. 

     Working Group Summary 
        
This document has been discussed both in the old IDNAbis WG list and APPSAWG list. 
The WG came to consensus on this document.

     Document Quality 

This document is concise and clear,
and is ready for publication

(end)
---------------------------------------------

---

From: Patrik Fältström <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 17 May 2011 05:46:25 +0200

Thank you for your work!

   Patrik

On 17 maj 2011, at 05:11, "Jiankang YAO" <[email-masked]> wrote:

> _______________________________________________
> apps-discuss mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss
>