Re: [proto-team] Re: small issues with draft-ietf-proto-wgchair-doc-shepherding-07

Henrik Levkowetz <henrik@levkowetz.com> Sat, 01 July 2006 10:33 UTC

Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Fwcmv-0003ox-N4; Sat, 01 Jul 2006 06:33:21 -0400
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Fwcmu-0003oe-4q for proto-team@ietf.org; Sat, 01 Jul 2006 06:33:20 -0400
Received: from av7-2-sn3.vrr.skanova.net ([81.228.9.182]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Fwcms-0003vR-MS for proto-team@ietf.org; Sat, 01 Jul 2006 06:33:20 -0400
Received: by av7-2-sn3.vrr.skanova.net (Postfix, from userid 502) id 987C237F15; Sat, 1 Jul 2006 12:06:49 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from smtp3-1-sn3.vrr.skanova.net (smtp3-1-sn3.vrr.skanova.net [81.228.9.101]) by av7-2-sn3.vrr.skanova.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 884E737E8A; Sat, 1 Jul 2006 12:06:49 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from shiraz.levkowetz.com (81-232-110-214-no16.tbcn.telia.com [81.232.110.214]) by smtp3-1-sn3.vrr.skanova.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id AB91737E43; Sat, 1 Jul 2006 12:33:17 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]) by shiraz.levkowetz.com with esmtp (Exim 4.62) (envelope-from <henrik@levkowetz.com>) id 1Fwcmn-0001q8-OO; Sat, 01 Jul 2006 12:33:16 +0200
Message-ID: <44A64F69.8030302@levkowetz.com>
Date: Sat, 01 Jul 2006 12:33:13 +0200
From: Henrik Levkowetz <henrik@levkowetz.com>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.4 (Macintosh/20060530)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Lars Eggert <lars.eggert@netlab.nec.de>
Subject: Re: [proto-team] Re: small issues with draft-ietf-proto-wgchair-doc-shepherding-07
References: <35758337-E41C-4EFE-AABA-A10F499198BC@netlab.nec.de> <3EC69FA4-7F5E-49C7-AB64-DC25C99A60FE@netlab.nec.de> <44A2C2A1.5090307@levkowetz.com> <90951F0D-0BAC-4F64-8230-F4BDCEED7920@netlab.nec.de>
In-Reply-To: <90951F0D-0BAC-4F64-8230-F4BDCEED7920@netlab.nec.de>
X-Enigmail-Version: 0.94.0.0
X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 127.0.0.1
X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: henrik@levkowetz.com
X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on shiraz.levkowetz.com); SAEximRunCond expanded to false
X-Spam-Score: 0.1 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: cd26b070c2577ac175cd3a6d878c6248
Cc: proto-team@ietf.org
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="===============1773333111=="
Errors-To: proto-team-bounces@ietf.org

Hi Lars,

on 2006-07-01 10:38 Lars Eggert said the following:
> 
> I think it makes total sense that the shepherding process should  
> continue all the way until publication. See below for a proposed  
> wording change to the draft.
> 
> Another issue is that AFAIK the RFC Editor does not currently CC  
> document shepherds on any email they send. (Usually, the chairs are  
> the shepherds, so in practice that's not a big issue, but we do now  
> allow secretaries to become shepherds.) We may want to explicitly  
> instruct the RFC Editor to do so.
> 
> So, how about replacing this:
> 
>>    Consequently, the document shepherding process includes follow-up
>>    work during all document-processing stages after Working Group Last
>>    Call, i.e., during AD Evaluation of a document, during IESG
>>    evaluation, and during post-approval processing by IANA and the RFC
>>    Editor.
> 
> with:
> 
>     Consequently, the document shepherding process includes follow-up
>     work during all document-processing stages after Working Group Last
>     Call, i.e., during AD Evaluation of a document, during IESG
>     evaluation, and during post-approval processing by IANA and the RFC
>     Editor.
> 
>     Shepherding actions during post-approval highly depend on the  
> specific
>     document. Consequently, this document does not give detailed  
> guidelines
>     for the post-approval shepherding phase, other than noting that a
>     document shepherd SHOULD generally treat post-approval requests  
> from the
>     IANA or the RFC Editor similarly to DISCUSS items raised during IESG
>     evaluation (see Section 3.3).
> 
> Comments?

Works for me.  Maybe s/highly depend/depend highly/

> If we decide on this, we might also want to change the title to  
> something like "Document Shepherding from Working Group Last Call to  
> RFC Publication".

Works for me.

Allison?


	Henrik

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