Protocol-Specific Profiles for JSContact
draft-ietf-calext-jscontact-profiles-14

[Ballot comment]
Hi Robert and Mario,

The changes made in [1] address nicely all the points raised in my previous ballot [2]. Thank you.

Cheers,
Med

[1] https://author-tools.ietf.org/iddiff?url1=draft-ietf-calext-jscontact-profiles-11&url2=draft-ietf-calext-jscontact-profiles-14&difftype=--html

[2] https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/calsify/sJAdMZ7s7pGMxjs6vAWjNhYBKk0/

[Ballot comment]
# IESG review of draft-ietf-calext-jscontact-profiles-11

CC @MikeBishop

It was pointed out to me that I was misreading RFC 8126, and Specification Required is stricter than (and includes) Expert Review. That correction addresses my DISCUSS; apologies for the confusion.

## Comments

### Section 3, paragraph 1
```
    properties, value types and values.  These JSContact elements MAY be
    further restricted by the profile, but a profile can not loosen
    restrictions.  For example, a profile can define an originally
    optional property to become mandatory, but it can not make a
    mandatory property become optional.
```
I would suggest framing these differently. A valid element in a conformant
profile MUST be a valid JSContact elemnt, but it is not the case that all valid
JSContact elements will be valid for a given profile.

### Section 3, paragraph 1
```
    The JSContact elements MUST be registered in the IANA JSContact
    registry.  A JSContact extension MAY define both a new profile and
    new properties or other elements, as long as they are registered at
    the same time.  A JSContact profile MUST be registered at IANA (see
```
The 2119 keywords are likely inappropriate here, as they would be difficult to
assess implementation compliance with. There is no way to force all
extant profiles to behave this way. Rather, this document defines a class of
profiles and a registry, and requires these properties before granting
registration.

## Nits

All comments below are about very minor potential issues that you may choose to
address in some way - or ignore - as you see fit. Some were flagged by
automated tools (via https://github.com/larseggert/ietf-reviewtool), so there
will likely be some false positives. There is no need to let me know what you
did with these suggestions.

### Typos

#### Section 3, paragraph 1
```
-    further restricted by the profile, but a profile can not loosen
-                                                        -
```

#### Section 3, paragraph 1
```
-    optional property to become mandatory, but it can not make a
-                                                    -
```

#### Section 3, paragraph 4
```
-    profile MUST also be valid (Section 1.7 of [RFC9553]).  Handling
+    profile MUST also be valid (Section 1.7 of [RFC9553]).  Handling of
+                                                                    +++
```

### "Abstract", paragraph 1
```
    which supporting all of JSContact semantics might be inappropriate.
```
Consider "all semantics of JSContact" or "all JSContact semantics"

### Grammar/style

#### Section 4, paragraph 14
```
profile. * The "kind" property of the the NameComponent objects is set to "su
                                  ^^^^^^^
```
Possible typo: you repeated a word.

#### Section 5.1, paragraph 1
```
s profile applies. The reference MUST must include the section number or nam
                                ^^^^^^^^^
```
Possible typo: you repeated a word.

[Ballot comment]
Thanks to the authors and the WG for their work on this document.

I support the DISCUSS positions of Mike and Med.

Please find below some other comments:

1) I wonder why the section 4 is not moved into the appendix. It is not normative part of this document and seems like would sit well alongside the current Appendix A?

2) I am not familiar with this subject matter, but I am confused with the use of IANA registries for versioned information. I would like to confirm that the desire here is to capture only the latest version of something in the registry and the previous version information is lost. Is that really the intent? I am asking because there is an "escape" clause that allows registration of different versions of a profile as separate entries as well. So, now we will have entries like (Foo,v2) but also entries like (BarV1,v1), (BarV2,v1), (BarV3,v1). Seems odd to me but I don't know enough to turn this into a discussion.

[Ballot discuss]
# IESG review of draft-ietf-calext-jscontact-profiles-11

CC @MikeBishop

## Discuss

### Section 5.1, paragraph 1
```
    IANA will add the "JSContact Profile" registry to the "JSContact"
    registry group.  The purpose of this new registry is to register
    profiles for JSContact data.  The registry policy to add a new
    profile to this registry is "Specification Required", while the
    registry policy to update an existing profile is "Expert Review".
    The change controller is IETF.
```
So, to be clear, *any* specification can be registered with IANA regardless of
whether the profile it defines meets these requirements, while the Expert reviews
only updates to existing registrations?

I don't think that makes sense. The following paragraph clearly appears to
describe things you want the Expert to check before the profile is initially
added to the registry. I'm unclear why it wouldn't simply be Expert Review all around.

[Ballot comment]
## Comments

### Section 3, paragraph 1
```
    properties, value types and values.  These JSContact elements MAY be
    further restricted by the profile, but a profile can not loosen
    restrictions.  For example, a profile can define an originally
    optional property to become mandatory, but it can not make a
    mandatory property become optional.
```
I would suggest framing these differently. A valid element in a conformant
profile MUST be a valid JSContact elemnt, but it is not the case that all valid
JSContact elements will be valid for a given profile.

### Section 3, paragraph 1
```
    The JSContact elements MUST be registered in the IANA JSContact
    registry.  A JSContact extension MAY define both a new profile and
    new properties or other elements, as long as they are registered at
    the same time.  A JSContact profile MUST be registered at IANA (see
```
The 2119 keywords are likely inappropriate here, as they would be difficult to
assess implementation compliance with. There is no way to force all
extant profiles to behave this way. Rather, this document defines a class of
profiles and a registry, and requires these properties before granting
registration.

## Nits

All comments below are about very minor potential issues that you may choose to
address in some way - or ignore - as you see fit. Some were flagged by
automated tools (via https://github.com/larseggert/ietf-reviewtool), so there
will likely be some false positives. There is no need to let me know what you
did with these suggestions.

### Typos

#### Section 3, paragraph 1
```
-    further restricted by the profile, but a profile can not loosen
-                                                        -
```

#### Section 3, paragraph 1
```
-    optional property to become mandatory, but it can not make a
-                                                    -
```

#### Section 3, paragraph 4
```
-    profile MUST also be valid (Section 1.7 of [RFC9553]).  Handling
+    profile MUST also be valid (Section 1.7 of [RFC9553]).  Handling of
+                                                                    +++
```

### "Abstract", paragraph 1
```
    which supporting all of JSContact semantics might be inappropriate.
```
Consider "all semantics of JSContact" or "all JSContact semantics"

### Grammar/style

#### Section 4, paragraph 14
```
profile. * The "kind" property of the the NameComponent objects is set to "su
                                  ^^^^^^^
```
Possible typo: you repeated a word.

#### Section 5.1, paragraph 1
```
s profile applies. The reference MUST must include the section number or nam
                                ^^^^^^^^^
```
Possible typo: you repeated a word.

[Ballot comment]
# Andy Newton, ART AD, comments for draft-ietf-calext-jscontact-profiles-11
CC @anewton1998

* line numbers:
  - https://author-tools.ietf.org/api/idnits?url=https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-calext-jscontact-profiles-11.txt&submitcheck=True

* comment syntax:
  - https://github.com/mnot/ietf-comments/blob/main/format.md

* "Handling Ballot Positions":
  - https://ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-ballot-positions/

## Thanks to the Reviewers

Many thanks to Paul Kyzivat for his reviews.

As this profile has been instrumental for the usage of JSContact in
protocols not originally envisioned when JSContact was created, I
support this with a YES.

[Ballot comment]
Section 3, paragraph 2
>    The JSContact elements MUST be registered in the IANA JSContact
>    registry.  A JSContact extension MAY define both a new profile and
>    new properties or other elements, as long as they are registered at
>    the same time.  A JSContact profile MUST be registered at IANA (see
>    Section 5).  Section 3.1 defines how to name a JSContact profile,
>    Section 3.2 defines how to version it, Section 3.3 defines how to
>    specify the properties supported by that profile.

Why the requirement that the profile, properties, and elements have to be registered at the same time? Is the implication that once a profile is defined, it cannot be modified?  Why do we have version numbers if the profile cannot be updated?

Section 4, paragraph 6
>    The following table defines the properties of that profile.  This
>    profile does not specify any "Restricted Property Type" and the
>    according column is omitted.

What is "according column"?

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NIT
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

All comments below are about very minor potential issues that you may choose to
address in some way - or ignore - as you see fit. Some were flagged by
automated tools (via https://github.com/larseggert/ietf-reviewtool), so there
will likely be some false positives. There is no need to let me know what you
did with these suggestions.

Section 4, paragraph 14
> profile. * The "kind" property of the the NameComponent objects is set to "su
>                                  ^^^^^^^
Possible typo: you repeated a word.

Section 4, paragraph 19
> ions do not incorrectly alter the type of a property, and that the version nu
>                                  ^^^^^^^^^
If "type" is a classification term, "a" is not necessary. Use "type of". (The
phrases "kind of" and "sort of" are informal if they mean "to some extent".).

Section 4, paragraph 22
> s profile applies. The reference MUST must include the section number or nam
>                                  ^^^^^^^^^
Possible typo: you repeated a word.

[Ballot discuss]
Hi Robert and Mario,

Thank you for the effort put into this document.

Please find below some few DISCUSS points:

# Missing normative reference

CURRENT:
  The JSContact elements MUST be registered in the IANA JSContact
  registry. 

Please add a normative reference to the registry.

# How to enforce this MUST?

CURRENT:
  A JSContact profile MUST be registered at IANA (see
  Section 5). 

Profiles are encouraged to be registered, but not sure how we can enforce this MUST.

# Who is allowed to change the version of a profile?

CURRENT:
  The version MUST be a positive integer and it MUST
  increase whenever the profile properties (Section 3.3) change

Once a profile is registered, who is allowed to change the properties of that profile?

More generally, what are the criteria to accept a request to change the properties of an existing profile?

# Version maintenance

Does IANA maintain all versions of a profile?

Can that be clarified in the specifications?

# New profile vs. version bump

CURRENT:
  If this versioning scheme is not adequate for protocol designers
  making use of JSContact profiles, then an alternative approach is to
  register a new JSContact profile for each new version.

How to follow this guidance given that there is no assumption on the protocols that will consume a profile?

At least, some guidance is needed to be provided to the Designated Experts to grant/discard registrations that follow that approach.

# Section 5.1: mixing normative language for users/designers vs. IANA

Please check the guidance in https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/statement-iesg-statement-on-clarifying-the-use-of-bcp-14-key-words/ (especially, Inappropriate Uses of Key Words section) and fix accordingly.

[Ballot comment]
# Section 3: Make the language stronger about relaxing constraints

OLD:
    These JSContact elements MAY be
  further restricted by the profile, but a profile can not loosen
  restrictions. 

NEW:
  These JSContact elements MAY be
  further restricted by the profile, but a profile MUST NOT loosen
  restrictions. 

# Nits

## Section 2: Data model and format

Maybe:

OLD:
  The JSContact [RFC9553] contact card data model and format is
  designed for use in address book applications and directory services.

NEW:
  The JSContact [RFC9553] contact card data model and format are
  designed for use in address book applications and directory services.

## Section 2: “Internet Standards” have a special meaning, better to avoid that mention here

OLD:
  In contrast, other protocols and internet standards might require
  exchanging _some_ contact card information, but not all of what
  JSContact provides. 


NEW:
  In contrast, other protocols and document specifications might require
  exchanging _some_ contact card information, but not all of what
  JSContact provides. 

## Section 3.2

OLD: The inital version value is 1.

NEW: The initial version value is 1.

## Section 4: Make it explicit this is an example

OLD:
  Name:
      jscontact-simple

NEW:
  Name:
      jscontact-simple-example

Cheers,
Med

[Ballot comment]
# Gunter Van de Velde, RTG AD, comments for draft-ietf-calext-jscontact-profiles-11

# The line numbers used are rendered from IETF idnits tool: https://author-tools.ietf.org/api/idnits?url=https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-calext-jscontact-profiles-11.txt

# Thanks for this document. I am not well skilled within this technology area, but found the document written in a style i could mostly understand. Thank you for the quality write-up.

# COMMENTS
# ========

179   profile-name = LALPHA *( ["-"] LALPHA / DIGIT )
180                   ; at most 255 octets in size
181
182   LALPHA      = %x61-7A ; a-z
183
184               Figure 1: ABNF Rule for JSContact Profile Name

GV> Is there a reference for what LALPHA means (is it lowercase alphabetic character)? or is this well known in this technology area?

Kind Regards,
Gunter Van de Velde
Routing AD

IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

IANA has completed its review of draft-ietf-calext-jscontact-profiles-09. If any part of this review is inaccurate, please let us know.

IANA has a note and question regarding the actions requested in the IANA Considerations section of this document.

We understand that, upon approval of this document, there is a single action which we must complete.

A new registry is to be created called the JSContact Profile registry. The new registry will be located in the JSContact registry group located at:

https://www.iana.org/assignments/jscontact/

NOTE: Section 5.1 states, "The registry policy and change procedure of the "JSContact" registry group apply." Please include the registration policies as listed in the JSContact registry group if the same applies here:

Major version change required - procedure: Standards Action
All other assignments - procedure: Specification Required

If the above applies, a note will be added to the registry as follows:

Notice of a potential new registration MUST be sent to the Calext mailing list for review, per Section 3.3.1 of [RFC9553].

QUESTION --> Regarding the templates in sections 5.1.1 and 5.1.2, can you confirm whether these fields are intended to appear within the Profile registry and Profile Property subregistry? It's not clear whether they should be part of the registry structure or simply part of the information required in the registration request.

IANA understands that there are no initial registrations in either the profiles registry or the properties registry.

We understand that this is the only action required to be completed upon approval of this document.

NOTE: The actions requested in this document will not be completed until the document has been approved for publication as an RFC. This message is meant only to confirm the list of actions that will be performed.

For definitions of IANA review states, please see:

https://datatracker.ietf.org/help/state/draft/iana-review

Thank you,

Sabrina Tanamal
IANA

The following Last Call announcement was sent out (ends 2025-11-25):

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC: calext-chairs@ietf.org, calsify@ietf.org, draft-ietf-calext-jscontact-profiles@ietf.org, mglt.ietf@gmail.com, orie@or13.io
Reply-To: last-call@ietf.org
Sender:
Subject: Last Call:  (Protocol-Specific Profiles for JSContact) to Proposed Standard


The IESG has received a request from the Calendaring Extensions WG (calext)
to consider the following document: - 'Protocol-Specific Profiles for
JSContact'
  as Proposed Standard

The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits final
comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the
last-call@ietf.org mailing lists by 2025-11-25. Exceptionally, comments may
be sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the beginning
of the Subject line to allow automated sorting.

Abstract


  This document defines JSContact profiles, an IANA registry for named
  subsets of JSContact elements.  It aims to facilitate using JSContact
  in context of contact data exchange protocols or other use cases, in
  which supporting all of JSContact semantics might be inappropriate.




The file can be obtained via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-calext-jscontact-profiles/



No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D.

### Reads awkward

```
250   There MUST NOT be an entry for the "@type" property, it is always
251   supported for any JSContact object in any profile.  Similarly, there
252   MUST NOT be an entry for the "version" property of the Card object,
253   it also is supported by any profile.
```

Suggestion:

```
All profiles MUST support "@type" and "version", and therefore profiles MUST NOT include entries for these properties.
```

# Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents

*This version is dated 4 July 2022.*

Thank you for your service as a document shepherd. Among the responsibilities is
answering the questions in this write-up to give helpful context to Last Call
and Internet Engineering Steering Group ([IESG][1]) reviewers, and your
diligence in completing it is appreciated. The full role of the shepherd is
further described in [RFC 4858][2]. You will need the cooperation of the authors
and editors to complete these checks.

Note that some numbered items contain multiple related questions; please be sure
to answer all of them.

## Document History

1. Does the working group (WG) consensus represent the strong concurrence of a
  few individuals, with others being silent, or did it reach broad agreement?

There has been discussions and changes being performed. It seems to me that the document has reached a group consensus.

2. Was there controversy about particular points, or were there decisions where
  the consensus was particularly rough?

No controversy.

3. Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If
  so, please summarize the areas of conflict in separate email messages to the
  responsible Area Director. (It should be in a separate email because this
  questionnaire is publicly available.)

No

4. For protocol documents, are there existing implementations of the contents of
  the document? Have a significant number of potential implementers indicated
  plans to implement? Are any existing implementations reported somewhere,
  either in the document itself (as [RFC 7942][3] recommends) or elsewhere
  (where)?

I suspect yes.

## Additional Reviews

5. Do the contents of this document closely interact with technologies in other
  IETF working groups or external organizations, and would it therefore benefit
  from their review? Have those reviews occurred? If yes, describe which
  reviews took place.

The group has a deep expertise in the technology described in the document. I do not see much benefit into requesting external reviews.

6. Describe how the document meets any required formal expert review criteria,
  such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.

N/A

7. If the document contains a YANG module, has the final version of the module
  been checked with any of the [recommended validation tools][4] for syntax and
  formatting validation? If there are any resulting errors or warnings, what is
  the justification for not fixing them at this time? Does the YANG module
  comply with the Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA) as specified
  in [RFC 8342][5]?

N/A

8. Describe reviews and automated checks performed to validate sections of the
  final version of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code,
  BNF rules, MIB definitions, CBOR's CDDL, etc.

Nits and ABNF which were checked by authors and myself.

## Document Shepherd Checks

9. Based on the shepherd's review of the document, is it their opinion that this
  document is needed, clearly written, complete, correctly designed, and ready
  to be handed off to the responsible Area Director?

Yes

10. Several IETF Areas have assembled [lists of common issues that their
    reviewers encounter][6]. For which areas have such issues been identified
    and addressed? For which does this still need to happen in subsequent
    reviews?

I think we are pretty fine.

11. What type of RFC publication is being requested on the IETF stream ([Best
    Current Practice][12], [Proposed Standard, Internet Standard][13],
    [Informational, Experimental or Historic][14])? Why is this the proper type
    of RFC? Do all Datatracker state attributes correctly reflect this intent?

The standard track has been requested. This is the proper type in order to guarantee interoperability. 

12. Have reasonable efforts been made to remind all authors of the intellectual
    property rights (IPR) disclosure obligations described in [BCP 79][7]? To
    the best of your knowledge, have all required disclosures been filed? If
    not, explain why. If yes, summarize any relevant discussion, including links
    to publicly-available messages when applicable.

Authors confirm that they are not aware of anything to be disclosed as well as their willingness to remain co-author.
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/calsify/fyTA7u07qZfjx8PP7fFyR6qYySY/
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/calsify/vPclbfv2Vdc5GIjVHarazlyuoyc/

13. Has each author, editor, and contributor shown their willingness to be
    listed as such? If the total number of authors and editors on the front page
    is greater than five, please provide a justification.

Yes see 12

14. Document any remaining I-D nits in this document. Simply running the [idnits
    tool][8] is not enough; please review the ["Content Guidelines" on
    authors.ietf.org][15]. (Also note that the current idnits tool generates
    some incorrect warnings; a rewrite is underway.)

ID-nits did not generated errors ABNF has been checked.

15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the [IESG
    Statement on Normative and Informative References][16].

Yes.

16. List any normative references that are not freely available to anyone. Did
    the community have sufficient access to review any such normative
    references?
N/A

17. Are there any normative downward references (see [RFC 3967][9] and [BCP
    97][10]) that are not already listed in the [DOWNREF registry][17]? If so,
    list them.

No

18. Are there normative references to documents that are not ready to be
    submitted to the IESG for publication or are otherwise in an unclear state?
    If so, what is the plan for their completion?

No

19. Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? If
    so, does the Datatracker metadata correctly reflect this and are those RFCs
    listed on the title page, in the abstract, and discussed in the
    introduction? If not, explain why and point to the part of the document
    where the relationship of this document to these other RFCs is discussed.

No

20. Describe the document shepherd's review of the IANA considerations section,
    especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the document.
    Confirm that all aspects of the document requiring IANA assignments are
    associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm
    that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm
    that each newly created IANA registry specifies its initial contents,
    allocations procedures, and a reasonable name (see [RFC 8126][11]).

The IANA section refers to JSContact specification which ensures coherence. The procedure to define and add a new profile seems clear to me.

21. List any new IANA registries that require Designated Expert Review for
    future allocations. Are the instructions to the Designated Expert clear?
    Please include suggestions of designated experts, if appropriate.

Expert fomr JSContact will handle the registry.

[1]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/
[2]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4858.html
[3]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7942.html
[4]: https://wiki.ietf.org/group/ops/yang-review-tools
[5]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8342.html
[6]: https://wiki.ietf.org/group/iesg/ExpertTopics
[7]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp79
[8]: https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/
[9]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3967.html
[10]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp97
[11]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8126.html
[12]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-5
[13]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.1
[14]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.2
[15]: https://authors.ietf.org/en/content-guidelines-overview
[16]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/normative-informative-references/
[17]: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/downref/

# Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents

*This version is dated 4 July 2022.*

Thank you for your service as a document shepherd. Among the responsibilities is
answering the questions in this write-up to give helpful context to Last Call
and Internet Engineering Steering Group ([IESG][1]) reviewers, and your
diligence in completing it is appreciated. The full role of the shepherd is
further described in [RFC 4858][2]. You will need the cooperation of the authors
and editors to complete these checks.

Note that some numbered items contain multiple related questions; please be sure
to answer all of them.

## Document History

1. Does the working group (WG) consensus represent the strong concurrence of a
  few individuals, with others being silent, or did it reach broad agreement?

There has been discussions and changes being performed. It seems to me that the document has reached a group consensus.

2. Was there controversy about particular points, or were there decisions where
  the consensus was particularly rough?

No controversy.

3. Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If
  so, please summarize the areas of conflict in separate email messages to the
  responsible Area Director. (It should be in a separate email because this
  questionnaire is publicly available.)

No

4. For protocol documents, are there existing implementations of the contents of
  the document? Have a significant number of potential implementers indicated
  plans to implement? Are any existing implementations reported somewhere,
  either in the document itself (as [RFC 7942][3] recommends) or elsewhere
  (where)?

I suspect yes.

## Additional Reviews

5. Do the contents of this document closely interact with technologies in other
  IETF working groups or external organizations, and would it therefore benefit
  from their review? Have those reviews occurred? If yes, describe which
  reviews took place.

The group has a deep expertise in the technology described in the document. I do not see much benefit into requesting external reviews.

6. Describe how the document meets any required formal expert review criteria,
  such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.

N/A

7. If the document contains a YANG module, has the final version of the module
  been checked with any of the [recommended validation tools][4] for syntax and
  formatting validation? If there are any resulting errors or warnings, what is
  the justification for not fixing them at this time? Does the YANG module
  comply with the Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA) as specified
  in [RFC 8342][5]?

N/A

8. Describe reviews and automated checks performed to validate sections of the
  final version of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code,
  BNF rules, MIB definitions, CBOR's CDDL, etc.

Nits and ABNF which were checked by authors and myself.

## Document Shepherd Checks

9. Based on the shepherd's review of the document, is it their opinion that this
  document is needed, clearly written, complete, correctly designed, and ready
  to be handed off to the responsible Area Director?

Yes

10. Several IETF Areas have assembled [lists of common issues that their
    reviewers encounter][6]. For which areas have such issues been identified
    and addressed? For which does this still need to happen in subsequent
    reviews?

I think we are pretty fine.

11. What type of RFC publication is being requested on the IETF stream ([Best
    Current Practice][12], [Proposed Standard, Internet Standard][13],
    [Informational, Experimental or Historic][14])? Why is this the proper type
    of RFC? Do all Datatracker state attributes correctly reflect this intent?

The standard track has been requested. This is the proper type in order to guarantee interoperability. 

12. Have reasonable efforts been made to remind all authors of the intellectual
    property rights (IPR) disclosure obligations described in [BCP 79][7]? To
    the best of your knowledge, have all required disclosures been filed? If
    not, explain why. If yes, summarize any relevant discussion, including links
    to publicly-available messages when applicable.

Authors confirm that they are not aware of anything to be disclosed as well as their willingness to remain co-author.
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/calsify/fyTA7u07qZfjx8PP7fFyR6qYySY/
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/calsify/vPclbfv2Vdc5GIjVHarazlyuoyc/

13. Has each author, editor, and contributor shown their willingness to be
    listed as such? If the total number of authors and editors on the front page
    is greater than five, please provide a justification.

Yes see 12

14. Document any remaining I-D nits in this document. Simply running the [idnits
    tool][8] is not enough; please review the ["Content Guidelines" on
    authors.ietf.org][15]. (Also note that the current idnits tool generates
    some incorrect warnings; a rewrite is underway.)

ID-nits did not generated errors ABNF has been checked.

15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the [IESG
    Statement on Normative and Informative References][16].

Yes.

16. List any normative references that are not freely available to anyone. Did
    the community have sufficient access to review any such normative
    references?
N/A

17. Are there any normative downward references (see [RFC 3967][9] and [BCP
    97][10]) that are not already listed in the [DOWNREF registry][17]? If so,
    list them.

No

18. Are there normative references to documents that are not ready to be
    submitted to the IESG for publication or are otherwise in an unclear state?
    If so, what is the plan for their completion?

No

19. Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? If
    so, does the Datatracker metadata correctly reflect this and are those RFCs
    listed on the title page, in the abstract, and discussed in the
    introduction? If not, explain why and point to the part of the document
    where the relationship of this document to these other RFCs is discussed.

No

20. Describe the document shepherd's review of the IANA considerations section,
    especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the document.
    Confirm that all aspects of the document requiring IANA assignments are
    associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm
    that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm
    that each newly created IANA registry specifies its initial contents,
    allocations procedures, and a reasonable name (see [RFC 8126][11]).

The IANA section refers to JSContact specification which ensures coherence. The procedure to define and add a new profile seems clear to me.

21. List any new IANA registries that require Designated Expert Review for
    future allocations. Are the instructions to the Designated Expert clear?
    Please include suggestions of designated experts, if appropriate.

Expert fomr JSContact will handle the registry.

[1]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/
[2]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4858.html
[3]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7942.html
[4]: https://wiki.ietf.org/group/ops/yang-review-tools
[5]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8342.html
[6]: https://wiki.ietf.org/group/iesg/ExpertTopics
[7]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp79
[8]: https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/
[9]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3967.html
[10]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp97
[11]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8126.html
[12]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-5
[13]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.1
[14]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.2
[15]: https://authors.ietf.org/en/content-guidelines-overview
[16]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/normative-informative-references/
[17]: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/downref/