Re: Issues around sponsoring individual documents

[Lisa Dusseault <[e-mail]>]

Didn't mean to name names publicly!  But as long as I am, I might as  
well characterize the ISs.

Some are being run practically as if they are WG documents, with  
commentary on active WG or post-WG lists.  James' and John's are in  
that category, as well as the IMAP i18n/collation docs.
One is likely to become the standard extensibility discovery  
mechanism for a WG standard -- James'.
Some are revising very widely used standards.  John's and Dave's are  
in that category.
Nearly half are URI scheme registrations, which must be IETF  
Consensus documents in order for the IANA registration to be  
allowed.  Others register a single mail header, VCard property  
(Cullen's) or MIME type.
A few are effectively from outside organizations including Odette,  
ISO, GSM, 3GPP and XMPP.
One is attempting to describe requirements for future work, rather  
than define an implementable standard -- Sam's.

Three ID authors requesting sponsoring have been fellow ADs (Sam,  
Cullen, Chris).
Nine primary authors were people I've never met.
Eight primary authors were people I have met at IETF meetings or  
elsewhere.

IMO, most are good causes.  Most are good quality.  YMMV.

Lisa

On Sep 7, 2007, at 1:00 PM, Lisa Dusseault wrote:

>
> On Sep 7, 2007, at 8:32 AM, James M Snell wrote:
>
>> Having written several IS drafts, one of which reached Proposed  
>> Standard
>> status and another Experimental RFC, and another that I believe might
>> have helped to motivate this particular note from you,...
>
>
> Yes, but this wasn't the only one!  Efforts by Dave Crocker and  
> John Klensin are also prompting this line of questioning.  But  
> Paul's request added to yours to publish the Atom feature  
> advertisement spec did prompt finishing the email to send it.
>
> I asked Paul if he'd be document shepherd for that spec, by the  
> way, to do the work of determining what consensus was for which  
> features to include, to write the doc shepherd's overview & help  
> the process along.  I'm not sure he thought that was inappropriate  
> or just not something he had the time to do, but he declined.
>
> thanks,
> Lisa