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

[Lars Eggert <[e-mail]>]

(Sending to the mailing list, too.)

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