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

I haven't had a chance to look yet (travel/meetings), sorry.

    Brian

On 2007-01-26 14:34, Henrik Levkowetz wrote:
> Hi Lars,
> 
>    Your updates work for me.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> 	Henrik
> 
> on 2007-01-24 17:06 Lars Eggert said the following:
>> Hi,
>>
>> attached is an update to wgchair-doc-shepherding that addresses some  
>> of the IESG comments.
>>
>> In all cases where there were multiple proposed resolutions, I opted  
>> for the smallest possible change. I'm completely OK with people  
>> preferring to fix things a different way, but please send text in  
>> this case.
>>
>> On 2006-11-17, at 11:40, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
>>> 1. Please make all the changes currently logged as an RFC Editor note
>>> (attached below for convenience).
>> done
>>> 2. To deal with Sam's DISCUSS, which he cleared, I promised to request
>>> text updates in the I-D tracker to
>>> a) align terminology: always refer to "responsible AD" and never
>>>     to "shepherding AD" and always refer to "document shepherd" and
>>>     not to "PROTO shepherd" ("PROTO" being jargon).
>> I couldn't find any of these terms in the document anymore - did Sam  
>> review an older version than -08?
>>> b) add a "Personnel" section and rename "Protocol Quality" to
>>>     "Document Quality" in the blank writeup.
>> was already done, too?
>>> 4. Re Russ' DISCUSS. Russ wasn't on the call.
>>>
>>>     Part 1: "The examples in Appendix A do not follow the outline
>>>     proposed in Section 3.1 paragraph (1.k)." Please fix.
>> fixed
>>>     Part 2: "it seems like it would be
>>>     better to post the Document Shepherd Write-Up Template, and put a
>>>     pointer to it in this document.  This document could include the
>>>     current template with an appropriate introduction, like:
>>>
>>>      The initial Document Shepherd Write-Up Template is included here,
>>>      but changes are expected over time."
>>>
>>>     Makes sense, and we can host the latest template in the IESG
>>>     pages, so you could add "The latest version is available
>>>     in the IESG section of the IETF web site." (I don't want to
>>>     assume the PROTO web site will exist for ever.) I will do
>>>     this when the draft is approved.
>> added
>>> 5. I'd like you to look at all the other AD comments in the tracker.
>>>     That should lead to a number of small changes.
>>>
>>>     Sam is concerned that paragraph (b) at the very end of (3.h)
>>>     might be read to encourage appeals. Of course, that all depends on
>>>     the meaning of "last resort" so there may be nothing you can  
>>> change.
>> Open issues:
>>    - Ted wanting to allow the possibility of shepherd teams
>>    - Ted wanting to have section 6 removed (or rewritten)
>>    - Sam and Cullen thinking that the appeals stuff in step 3.h is  
>> too much
>>    - Russ wanting to have security questions added to the writeup
>>    - whether or not this should become an ION
>>
>> Lars

>>
>>
> 

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