Re: [proto-team] Re: small issues with draft-ietf-proto-wgchair-doc-shepherding-07

[Lars Eggert <[e-mail]>]

Hi,

On Jun 28, 2006, at 19:55, Henrik Levkowetz wrote:
> I think it's right that this document describes shepherding from
> WG last call to IESG approval.  However, that being the subject of
> this draft doesn't necessarily mean that the shepherding process
> stops there -- only that this document doesn't describe more...
>
> I think that it's been the intention that a document shepherd keeps
> shepherding the document all the way to published document (other
> PROTO and/or IESG members will chime in with protests or agreements
> here, I'm sure) so we should either not change the paragraphs you
> quote above, or clarify them in a slightly different manner.
>
> If we first can establish whether we agree on the shepherding process
> continuing beyond the IESG approval, I'm sure we can propose some
> alternative text for the paragraphs above.  It'd be good to have an
> explicit agreement first, though.

I think it makes total sense that the shepherding process should  
continue all the way until publication. See below for a proposed  
wording change to the draft.

Another issue is that AFAIK the RFC Editor does not currently CC  
document shepherds on any email they send. (Usually, the chairs are  
the shepherds, so in practice that's not a big issue, but we do now  
allow secretaries to become shepherds.) We may want to explicitly  
instruct the RFC Editor to do so.

So, how about replacing this:

>    Consequently, the document shepherding process includes follow-up
>    work during all document-processing stages after Working Group Last
>    Call, i.e., during AD Evaluation of a document, during IESG
>    evaluation, and during post-approval processing by IANA and the RFC
>    Editor.

with:

    Consequently, the document shepherding process includes follow-up
    work during all document-processing stages after Working Group Last
    Call, i.e., during AD Evaluation of a document, during IESG
    evaluation, and during post-approval processing by IANA and the RFC
    Editor.

    Shepherding actions during post-approval highly depend on the  
specific
    document. Consequently, this document does not give detailed  
guidelines
    for the post-approval shepherding phase, other than noting that a
    document shepherd SHOULD generally treat post-approval requests  
from the
    IANA or the RFC Editor similarly to DISCUSS items raised during IESG
    evaluation (see Section 3.3).

Comments?

If we decide on this, we might also want to change the title to  
something like "Document Shepherding from Working Group Last Call to  
RFC Publication".

Lars
-- 
Lars Eggert                                     NEC Network Laboratories

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