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

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

Thanks. I say ship it (but read below first).

On 2007-01-24 17:06, Lars Eggert wrote:
> 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?

Yes, the document refers only to "Responsible Area Director",
the issue was to remove the old term from the I-D tracker.
And I guess Sam may well have reviewed -07. No change to the
draft is required.


>> 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

OK, and remind me to create that page!

>> 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

Those are comments. If the team doesn't want to implement them, I
won't insist.

>   - Russ wanting to have security questions added to the writeup

Does the team agree with Russ or want to push back? Why would we give
security a special place here, since we already have mandatory
security considerations? Can I add a question about IPv6 support?
Can you add one about congestion control? Where does this end?

>   - whether or not this should become an ION

I guess we should put that question when the document is
otherwise clear of DISCUSSes.

One trivial thing:

   The contact information for the Document Shepherd is also important	
   for the Gen-ART Directorate [GEN-ART]...

Gen-ART is not formally a Directorate; it's just a team.

     Brian

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