[proto-team] HEADS UP: new template for document shepherd write-up
Lars Eggert <lars.eggert@nokia.com> Mon, 05 February 2007 21:13 UTC
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HEB9T-0002TV-4s; Mon, 05 Feb 2007 16:13:27 -0500
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HEB9R-0002Sr-LR; Mon, 05 Feb 2007 16:13:25 -0500
Received: from smtp.nokia.com ([131.228.20.172] helo=mgw-ext13.nokia.com) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HEB9P-0002jj-V9; Mon, 05 Feb 2007 16:13:25 -0500
Received: from esebh107.NOE.Nokia.com (esebh107.ntc.nokia.com [172.21.143.143]) by mgw-ext13.nokia.com (Switch-3.2.5/Switch-3.2.5) with ESMTP id l15LAwpp020166; Mon, 5 Feb 2007 23:11:03 +0200
Received: from esebh001.NOE.Nokia.com ([172.21.138.28]) by esebh107.NOE.Nokia.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Mon, 5 Feb 2007 23:11:58 +0200
Received: from [10.39.6.158] ([10.162.253.242]) by esebh001.NOE.Nokia.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.6881); Mon, 5 Feb 2007 23:11:56 +0200
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v752.3)
To: WG Chairs <wgchairs@ietf.org>
Message-Id: <0D9E2974-B2A7-4345-B8A7-483CB20FD297@nokia.com>
From: Lars Eggert <lars.eggert@nokia.com>
Date: Mon, 05 Feb 2007 13:12:10 -0800
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.752.3)
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 05 Feb 2007 21:11:56.0685 (UTC) FILETIME=[446F3BD0:01C7496A]
X-eXpurgate-Category: 1/0
X-eXpurgate-ID: 149371::070205231103-4EBD6BB0-33904389/0-0/0-1
X-Nokia-AV: Clean
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 88b11fc64c1bfdb4425294ef5374ca07
Cc: IESG IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, proto-team@ietf.org
Subject: [proto-team] 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>
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============1007336772=="
Errors-To: proto-team-bounces@ietf.org
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