[proto-team] Fwd: Last Call: 'Document Shepherding From Working Group Last Call to IESG Approval' to Informational RFC (draft-ietf-proto-wgchair-doc-shepherding)

[Lars Eggert <[e-mail]>]

Begin forwarded message:

> From: Ólafur Guðmundsson /DNSEXT co-chair <[e-mail]>
> Date: August 15, 2006 2:04:31 PM GMT+02:00
> To: [e-mail]
> Subject: Re: Last Call: 'Document Shepherding From Working Group  
> Last Call to IESG Approval' to Informational RFC  (draft-ietf-proto- 
> wgchair-doc-shepherding)
>
> I know this comment is late:
> To comments:
> #1 (nit) s/author/editor/g
>    WG documents are edited and the editors serve at the pleasure of  
> the
>    chairs and reflect the will of the working group.
>
>    I have in my many years found it necessary to beat up editors to  
> hammer
>    in this point. The fundamental difference is that authors think  
> they can
>    do what ever they want to the documents and publish a new copy  
> when it is
>    continent to them,  but editors know they are working for the WG  
> and chairs
>    and are much more responsive to pressure  to issue new version,  
> make
>    changes reflecting the will of the WG.
>    Having said that I frequently allow editors the flexibility to  
> do what ever
>    they want while the idea is in the state of formulation, but as
>    the idea becomes closer to completion I tighten the rains.
>
> #2 In the check list for document I would like to add a new item to  
> the WG
>    Shepherd, between   1.g and 1.h
>    1.x   Has the Document Shepherd verified that the document IANA
>          consideration section is consistent with the remainder of
>          the document. If the document specifies protocol  
> extensions are
>          reservations requested in appropriate registries? Are the
>          registries clearly identified ?
>          If the document is requesting a new registry does the  
> document
>          list the proposed initial contents of the registry ? Is  
> there a
>          good name suggested for the new registry ?
>
> Reasoning: I have been over the years had to work with IANA to  
> reconstitute
> registries that did not get created, values that did not get put in  
> registries, etc.
> Lately I have been working for IANA in reviewing ietf-documents for  
> IANA
> actions and the IANA consideration sections are in may cases plain  
> wrong,
> the WG chairs are frequently better aware of registries and their  
> use, than
> editors and by putting this item on their checklist I hope they push
> documents to have appropriate IANA consideration section before WGLC.
>
> If it would help I'm willing to write a guide to write IANA  
> considerations
> section.
>
>         Olafur
>
> At 13:10 19/07/2006, The IESG wrote:
>> The IESG has received a request from an individual submitter to  
>> consider the
>> following document:
>>
>> - 'Document Shepherding From Working Group Last Call to IESG  
>> Approval '
>>    <draft-ietf-proto-wgchair-doc-shepherding-07.txt> as an  
>> Informational RFC
>>
>> The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
>> final comments on this action.  Please send any comments to the
>> [e-mail] or [e-mail] mailing lists by 2006-08-16.
>>
>> The file can be obtained via
>> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-proto-wgchair-doc- 
>> shepherding-07.
>> txt
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> IETF-Announce mailing list
>> [e-mail]
>> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-announce
>
>

Lars
-- 
Lars Eggert                                     NEC Network Laboratories

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