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> identifiersas 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.
Attachment:
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature