[proto-team] Re: HEADS UP: new template for document shepherd write-up

Brian E Carpenter <brc@zurich.ibm.com> Tue, 06 February 2007 08:34 UTC

Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HELms-0000NI-FO; Tue, 06 Feb 2007 03:34:50 -0500
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HELmq-0000HI-BJ; Tue, 06 Feb 2007 03:34:48 -0500
Received: from mtagate4.de.ibm.com ([195.212.29.153]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HELmo-0002u2-L1; Tue, 06 Feb 2007 03:34:48 -0500
Received: from d12nrmr1607.megacenter.de.ibm.com (d12nrmr1607.megacenter.de.ibm.com [9.149.167.49]) by mtagate4.de.ibm.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id l168Yk6s060076; Tue, 6 Feb 2007 08:34:46 GMT
Received: from d12av02.megacenter.de.ibm.com (d12av02.megacenter.de.ibm.com [9.149.165.228]) by d12nrmr1607.megacenter.de.ibm.com (8.13.8/8.13.8/NCO v8.2) with ESMTP id l168Yjqu1548370; Tue, 6 Feb 2007 09:34:46 +0100
Received: from d12av02.megacenter.de.ibm.com (loopback [127.0.0.1]) by d12av02.megacenter.de.ibm.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.13.3) with ESMTP id l168Yj2b014337; Tue, 6 Feb 2007 09:34:45 +0100
Received: from sihl.zurich.ibm.com (sihl.zurich.ibm.com [9.4.16.232]) by d12av02.megacenter.de.ibm.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id l168Yjf1014329; Tue, 6 Feb 2007 09:34:45 +0100
Received: from [9.4.210.81] ([9.4.210.81]) by sihl.zurich.ibm.com (AIX4.3/8.9.3p2/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA236372; Tue, 6 Feb 2007 09:34:44 +0100
Message-ID: <45C83DA2.4010304@zurich.ibm.com>
Date: Tue, 06 Feb 2007 09:34:42 +0100
From: Brian E Carpenter <brc@zurich.ibm.com>
Organization: IBM
User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.9 (Windows/20061207)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: WG Chairs <wgchairs@ietf.org>
References: <0D9E2974-B2A7-4345-B8A7-483CB20FD297@nokia.com>
In-Reply-To: <0D9E2974-B2A7-4345-B8A7-483CB20FD297@nokia.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 93e7fb8fef2e780414389440f367c879
Cc: IESG IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, proto-team@ietf.org
Subject: [proto-team] Re: HEADS UP: new template for document shepherd write-up
X-BeenThere: proto-team@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: Process and Tools Team <proto-team.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/proto-team>, <mailto:proto-team-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:proto-team@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:proto-team-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/proto-team>, <mailto:proto-team-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: proto-team-bounces@ietf.org

And... we will maintain an up to date template at
http://www.ietf.org/IESG/content/Doc-Writeup.html

(plus a version tuned for individual submissions via AD at
http://www.ietf.org/IESG/content/Indiv-Doc-Writeup.html )

    Brian

On 2007-02-05 22:12, Lars Eggert wrote:
> Hi, WG chairs,
> 
> the IESG has just approved the -09 revision of the "document 
> shepherding" procedures document. Compared to earlier versions, the 
> shepherd write-up has changed.
> 
> When you prepare the document shepherd write-up for a draft that is 
> going to the IESG, please make sure to use the latest, final version of 
> the template. I'm attaching it for your convenience below; note that 
> minor changes might happen once the RFC Editor is done with it.
> 
> Also: Henrik has recently released a version of idnits that checks for 
> DOWNREFs and adds many other useful checks. Please make sure you use 
> that version to validate the document before you request publication. 
> Especially in the case of DOWNREFs, catching them before an IETF last 
> call will significantly speed up processing.
> 
> Lars
> 
> ----
> 
> Document Shepherd Write-Up
> 
>    (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?
> 
>    (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?
> 
>    (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?
> 
>    (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.
> 
>    (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?
> 
>    (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.)
> 
>    (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?
> 
>    (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].
> 
>    (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 [RFC2434].  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?
> 
>    (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?
> 
>    (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
>              Relevant content can frequently be found in the abstract
>              and/or introduction of the document.  If not, this may be
>              an indication that there are deficiencies in the abstract
>              or introduction.
> 
>           Working Group Summary
>              Was there anything in WG process that is worth noting?  For
>              example, was there controversy about particular points or
>              were there decisions where the consensus was particularly
>              rough?
> 
>           Document Quality
>              Are there existing implementations of the protocol?  Have a
>              significant number of vendors indicated their plan to
>              implement the specification?  Are there any reviewers that
>              merit special mention as having done a thorough review,
>              e.g., one that resulted in important changes or a
>              conclusion that the document had no substantive issues?  If
>              there was a MIB Doctor, Media Type or other expert review,
>              what was its course (briefly)?  In the case of a Media Type
>              review, on what date was the request posted?
> 
>           Personnel
>              Who is the Document Shepherd for this document?  Who is the
>              Responsible Area Director?
> 

_______________________________________________
proto-team mailing list
proto-team@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/proto-team