[proto-team] Re: HEADS UP: new template for document shepherd write-up

[Brian E Carpenter <[e-mail]>]

Makes sense to me.

(BTW Jari, you could have the ability to update them
directly, as described at
http://www1.tools.ietf.org/group/iesg/trac/wiki/OwnContent .
You would need to get SFTP access from the secretariat.)

     Brian

On 2007-02-06 11:30, Jari Arkko wrote:
> (reduced distribution)
> 
> Should these pointers appear from the WG chairs section
> of the IETF web page?
> 
> Jari
> 
> Brian E Carpenter kirjoitti:
>> And... we will maintain an up to date template at
>> http://www.ietf.org/IESG/content/Doc-Writeup.html
>>
>> (plus a version tuned for individual submissions via AD at
>> http://www.ietf.org/IESG/content/Indiv-Doc-Writeup.html )
>>
>>    Brian
>>
>> On 2007-02-05 22:12, Lars Eggert wrote:
>>> 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
[e-mail]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/proto-team