Re: [proto-team] revision of draft-ietf-proto-wgchair-doc-shepherding attached

[Henrik Levkowetz <[e-mail]>]

Hi Lars,

  I'm of course biased, having suggested the changes, but I find that
to me it seems that the document reads much more smoothly now.  Maybe
that's the reason why I found more stuff...

on 2006-06-09 15:09 Lars Eggert said the following:
> On Jun 9, 2006, at 9:15, Lars Eggert wrote:
>> Agree with all of them, will make the edits.
> 
> Revision with Henrik's suggestions attached.

Minor fix:

Section 3.1, paragraph 7:

>    (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 you
>           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 those issues have been discussed in the WG and the
>           WG has indicated that it still wishes to advance the document,
>           detail those concerns here.

	s/perhaps you he or she/perhaps he or she/

Larger issue:

Section 3.1, paragraph 11:

>    (1.i)  For Standards Track and BCP documents, the IESG approval
>           announcement includes a write-up.  Please provide such a
>           write-up.  Recent examples can be found in the "Action"
>           announcements for approved documents.  The approval
>           announcement contains the following sections:

One question for clarification: In the current revision, the "Document
Shepherd Write-up" seems to be defined as what's covered under 1.i, and
presumably the "Document Shepherd Questionnaire" is the whole of the
(1.a)..(1.i) set of questions.  It seems to me that in some places the
document mentions the Document Shepherd Write-up where intention is to
talk about talk about both questionaire and (1.i) write-up; for instance
here:

>    The Document Shepherd MUST send the Document Shepherd Write-Up to the
>    Responsible Area Director and [e-mail] together with
>    the request to publish the document.  The Document Shepherd SHOULD
>    also send the write-up, minus any discussion of possible appeals, to
>    the working group mailing list.

I seem to remember that during the original discussions, we sometimes
(mostly?) referred to the whole questionnaire as the write-up.  Whatever
we call them, it would be good to have clear and separate terms for the
(1.i) writeup and for the questionnaire, and make sure that where the
document now mentions the write-up, it is verified (and if needed corrected)
so it correctly indicates (1.i) write-up or questionnaire.  It may be that
most places where the document now mentions 'Write-up' the whole
questionnaire is meant - if we define the 'Write-up' as being the whole
questionnaire, we should have a different term for the (1.i) write-up.


Regards,

	Henrik

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