Re: Qualitative Analysis of IETF and IESG trends

"Frank Ellermann" <> Fri, 27 June 2008 02:08 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from [] (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 99FB53A698F; Thu, 26 Jun 2008 19:08:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id A8B353A698F for <>; Thu, 26 Jun 2008 19:08:17 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.987
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.987 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.388, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id xITR7YM2tgiK for <>; Thu, 26 Jun 2008 19:08:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 25EEB3A6846 for <>; Thu, 26 Jun 2008 19:08:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from list by with local (Exim 4.43) id 1KC3Nq-00071j-Ep for; Fri, 27 Jun 2008 02:08:18 +0000
Received: from ([]) by with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for <>; Fri, 27 Jun 2008 02:08:18 +0000
Received: from nobody by with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for <>; Fri, 27 Jun 2008 02:08:18 +0000
From: "Frank Ellermann" <>
Subject: Re: Qualitative Analysis of IETF and IESG trends
Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2008 04:09:52 +0200
Organization: <>
Lines: 37
Message-ID: <g41i2a$cic$>
References: <><> <><><> <><> <CE24B45F0E7AC31704D4FED5@p3.JCK.COM>
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1914
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1914
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
Reply-To: Frank Ellermann <>
List-Id: IETF Discussion <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

John C Klensin wrote:

> This is not an easy problem.

Then let's do something easy first, add a section about
"shepherds and individual sheep" in chapter 8 of TAObis.

It is hard to find this info in Brian's marauder's map.
Some points:  Anybody can recommend an individual draft
for publication on standards track (RFC 2026 6.1.1).

By one of those rules that are no policy and hidden in
an ex-ION archive that recommendation has to include a
proposed write-up (roughly the same as for WG drafts),
and it is sent to the ADs of the corresponding area(s),
with a copy to iesg@, because it actually constitutes
a PubReq.  Informing the authors helps, the initiative
is doomed without cooperation from the author(s).  

After that the ADs can toss a coin who if anybody wants
to "sponsor" the draft, and appoint a shepherd for some
clerical tasks (watching the draft tracker, figure out
where the "token" is when it is MIA, and tickle author,
sponsor, or "discussing" ADs as needed).

The usual "those who propose" might apply, but ADs are
free to do this "shepherding" without help.  A proposed
write-up covers checked ABNF, checked nits, all required
reviews ready, etc., down to the "1F" question.

But unlike WG shepherds, who are typically co-Chairs, an
individual shepherd does not *decide* about consensus or
not, like an author does not *decide* this.  Only Chairs
and ADs are entitled to decide this, it's an appealable
decision.  Authors, editors, and shepherds are immune.


IETF mailing list