Re: BCP97bis

[Michael Richardson <[e-mail]>]

Murray S. Kucherawy <[e-mail]> wrote:
    > } At a minimum, authors/editors of source documents need to secure freely
    > } available copies of the target documents for use by all anticipated
    > } reviewers
    > } during the source document's life cycle, which includes working group
    > } participants, any member of the community that chooses to participate in
    > } Last Call discussions, area review teams, IANA expert reviewers, and members
    > } of the IESG.

    >> It seems to me, if this requirement is to be taken seriously, that either
    >> the
    >> DT or some other resource needs to contain notes on how to obtain the
    >> references.


    > That'll be different for every source of the references, right?  I'm not
    > sure how we could do that programmatically for all cases.

Programmatically? Not what I meant.

Freeform text in the datatracker... as in, "email bob and tell you are
                        reviewing FOO, in order to get document BAR"

    > Really how you go about getting it is somewhat orthogonal to the point
    > we're trying to address with this update, which is: If you're going to make
    > a normative reference to something access to which is restricted, that has
    > to be resolved somehow before it goes to the IESG; we (and any other
    > reviewers, e.g., the review teams) need the referenced material to be able
    > to do our jobs.

If people who work on ITU-T,3GPP,IEEE,ANSI documents come to us with a
document for us to publish, it seems like they ought to make all the
background available to us.

Are we getting this kind of minimum?

    >> So I am reacting the word "At a minium", and I don't think we are even
    >> getting to that minimum.   There are a bunch of specifications that aren't
    >> just transitioning from some legacy specification to an RFC, but which we
    >> are
    >> allocating numbers/etc. for entities which make it very difficult to read
    >> their
    >> documents.  I think that we should be doing more than the minimum here.

    > What do you suggest in terms of text changes here to address what you're
    > talking about?

} At a minimum,

**prior to WGLC and sectorial review**

} authors/editors of source documents need to secure freely
    > } available copies of the target documents for use by all anticipated
    > } reviewers
    > } during the source document's life cycle, which includes working group
    > } participants, any member of the community that chooses to participate in
    > } Last Call discussions, area review teams, IANA expert reviewers, and members
    > } of the IESG.

Maybe then add:
"Access to the documents should be noted in the Shepherd write up."

--
Michael Richardson <[e-mail]>   . o O ( IPv6 IøT consulting )
           Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide