[proto-team] Re: One more spin of draft-ietf-proto-wgchair-doc-shepherding

[Lars Eggert <[e-mail]>]

On 2007-1-30, at 17:27, ext Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> On 2007-01-24 17:06, Lars Eggert wrote:
>> Open issues:
>>   - Ted wanting to allow the possibility of shepherd teams

I think we explicitly wanted one clearly identified person, to avoid  
having to chase down the shepherd-of-the-week.

>>   - Ted wanting to have section 6 removed (or rewritten)

Don't care much.

>>   - Sam and Cullen thinking that the appeals stuff in step 3.h is  
>> too much

I think Sam has a point. When appeals come into the picture, the AD  
needs to take over. What do others think?

>>   - Russ wanting to have security questions added to the writeup
>
> Does the team agree with Russ or want to push back? Why would we give
> security a special place here, since we already have mandatory
> security considerations? Can I add a question about IPv6 support?
> Can you add one about congestion control? Where does this end?

Right. I wouldn't want this, and I think Russ is relaying a comment  
from the audience.

>>   - whether or not this should become an ION
>
> I guess we should put that question when the document is
> otherwise clear of DISCUSSes.

I'm somewhat in favor of just letting it become an RFC. It's late in  
the game to switch.

> One trivial thing:
>
>   The contact information for the Document Shepherd is also important	
>   for the Gen-ART Directorate [GEN-ART]...
>
> Gen-ART is not formally a Directorate; it's just a team.

Fixed.

Lars

_______________________________________________
proto-team mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/proto-team