Re: [proto-team] Fwd: Question for draft shepherd's questionnaire?

On 2007-07-11 15:40 Lars Eggert said the following:
> On 2007-7-3, at 11:18, ext Lars Eggert wrote:
>> FYI, there was a suggestion to add an item to the questionnaire.  
>> What do folks think?
> 
> Any opinions on this addition?

Umm - not a lot.  The addition seems reasonable by itself, but at
the same time I'm wary of the questionnaire becoming too long.
At some point we should probably require that any suggestion of
an addition is accompanied by a suggestion of what should be removed.

<off-topic>I wish the legislative bodies of countries would have
a similar rule -- it's unreasonable to have a body of active laws
which you expect people to follow which is so large that nobody
can grasp it.</off-topic>

>> How are we maintaining the questionnaire? Should I start a  
>> rfc4858bis document?
> 
> The questionnaire is currently in the RFC and on http:// 
> tools.ietf.org/group/proto/home/ as
> 
> 	http://www.ietf.org/IESG/content/Doc-Writeup.html
> and
> 	http://www.ietf.org/IESG/content/Indiv-Doc-Writeup.html
> 
> I don't know where the second version comes from - the sponsoring  
> guidelines?

I think yes, and I think Jari created the second one.

> I also don't know who maintains these templates and how additions  
> such as the above would be made. Do we edit those web pages? Do we  
> issue an RFC4858bis? Do we turn the templates into an ION?

An ION (or two?) seems like a good idea.

	Henrik

> Lars
> 
>> Begin forwarded message:
>>> From: "ext Stig Venaas" <stig.venaas@uninett.no>
>>> Date: July 1, 2007 11:37:43 GMT+03:00
>>> To: Lars Eggert <lars.eggert@nokia.com>
>>> Cc: ext Ralph Droms <rdroms@cisco.com>, Jari Arkko  
>>> <jari.arkko@piuha.net>
>>> Subject: Re: Question for draft shepherd's questionnaire?
>>>
>>> Lars Eggert wrote:
>>>> On 2007-6-29, at 14:51, ext Ralph Droms wrote:
>>>>> "Does this Internet Draft propose any extensions to the  
>>>>> operation or capabilities of any other protocols such as IPv6  
>>>>> (extension headers), ICMP, Diameter, RADIUS, DNS or DHCP?  Does  
>>>>> this Internet Draft require that IANA assign any protocol  
>>>>> numbers that require review by another individual or review body  
>>>>> outside the submitting working group?"
>>>> We might consider adding a sentence to (1.c) on this issue. Maybe:
>>>>    (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?
>>>> NEW:
>>>>           If the document extends or makes requirements on a  
>>>> protocol
>>>>           that originated in another WG or area, has that group
>>>>           reviewed that the document conforms to any established  
>>>> protocol
>>>>           maintenance process and that it does not conflict with
>>>>           chartered or planned work?
>>> Adding this would be great,
>>>
>>> Stig
>>>
>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> proto-team mailing list
>>> proto-team@ietf.org
>>> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/proto-team

Re: [proto-team] Fwd: Question for draft shepherd's questionnaire?

Attachment: signature.asc