[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
- [proto-team] Re: HEADS UP: new template for docum… Brian E Carpenter
- Re: [proto-team] Re: HEADS UP: new template for d… Allison Mankin
- [proto-team] HEADS UP: new template for document … Lars Eggert
- [proto-team] Re: HEADS UP: new template for docum… Brian E Carpenter
- Re: [proto-team] Re: HEADS UP: new template for d… Brian E Carpenter
- [proto-team] Re: HEADS UP: new template for docum… Brian E Carpenter
- [proto-team] Re: HEADS UP: new template for docum… Brian E Carpenter
- Re: [proto-team] Re: HEADS UP: new template for d… Henrik Levkowetz
- Re: [proto-team] Re: HEADS UP: new template for d… Brian E Carpenter
- Re: [proto-team] Re: HEADS UP: new template for d… Henrik Levkowetz
- Re: [proto-team] Re: HEADS UP: new template for d… Brian E Carpenter