[proto-team] Fwd: Last Call: 'Document Shepherding From Working Group Last Call to IESG Approval' to Informational RFC

Begin forwarded message:

> From: Frank Ellermann <nobody@xyzzy.claranet.de>
> Date: July 31, 2006 2:35:12 AM GMT+02:00
> To: ietf@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: Last Call: 'Document Shepherding From Working Group  
> Last Call to IESG Approval' to Informational RFC
>
> The IESG wrote:
>
>> Informational RFC
>
> Why not BCP ?  Some nits (that could be "DEnglish" on my side):
>
> In 3a s/behalf/behalf of/ and  s/able support/able to support/.
> In 3d s/a a consistent/a consistent/
>
> In 3h (b), what's the point of an appeal against a DISCUSS ?
> Doesn't it turn into ABSTAIN automatically after some time ?
>
>  From sections 1 and 4 I don't see who initiates this procedure,
> either the Chairs or the responsible AD.  Apparently the Chairs
> can decide who's document shepherd, but the AD isn't forced to
> use the procedure and can do the shepherding directly.
>
> Why can't the AD simply decide what it's going to be, free to
> change his or her mind at any time in the lifetime of the WG ?
>
> That would also clear a potential deadloop at 2h, returning to
> 2a "forever".  The procedure apparently doesn't work in this
> case.  And at that stage an explicit right to appeal might be
> useful, or how's the WG supposed to get beyond the blocking AD
> at this point (2h => 2a loop) ?
>
> In (3e) and (3f) the document shepherd checks all last minute
> changes with the authors (and if possible + necessary the WG).
> Please add a note to (3e) that this includes any "notes to the
> RFC editor" added in step (3b).
>
> Bye, Frank
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ietf mailing list
> Ietf@ietf.org
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Lars
-- 
Lars Eggert                                     NEC Network Laboratories

[proto-team] Fwd: Last Call: 'Document Shepherding From Working Group Last Call to IESG Approval' to Informational RFC

Attachment: smime.p7s