[proto-team] Re: HEADS UP: new template for document shepherd write-up
Brian E Carpenter <brc@zurich.ibm.com> Tue, 06 February 2007 15:52 UTC
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HESc4-0001ST-2v; Tue, 06 Feb 2007 10:52:08 -0500
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HESc2-0001S4-Pv; Tue, 06 Feb 2007 10:52:06 -0500
Received: from mtagate6.uk.ibm.com ([195.212.29.139]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HESc1-00054K-2t; Tue, 06 Feb 2007 10:52:06 -0500
Received: from d06nrmr1407.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (d06nrmr1407.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com [9.149.38.185]) by mtagate6.uk.ibm.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id l16Fq3TR301712; Tue, 6 Feb 2007 15:52:03 GMT
Received: from d06av02.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (d06av02.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com [9.149.37.228]) by d06nrmr1407.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (8.13.8/8.13.8/NCO v8.2) with ESMTP id l16Fq36j1339548; Tue, 6 Feb 2007 15:52:03 GMT
Received: from d06av02.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (loopback [127.0.0.1]) by d06av02.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.13.3) with ESMTP id l16Fq3gD030491; Tue, 6 Feb 2007 15:52:03 GMT
Received: from sihl.zurich.ibm.com (sihl.zurich.ibm.com [9.4.16.232]) by d06av02.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id l16Fq3j5030481; Tue, 6 Feb 2007 15:52:03 GMT
Received: from [9.4.210.81] ([9.4.210.81]) by sihl.zurich.ibm.com (AIX4.3/8.9.3p2/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA103478; Tue, 6 Feb 2007 16:52:02 +0100
Message-ID: <45C8A422.5010708@zurich.ibm.com>
Date: Tue, 06 Feb 2007 16:52:02 +0100
From: Brian E Carpenter <brc@zurich.ibm.com>
Organization: IBM
User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.9 (Windows/20061207)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Ólafur Guðmundsson /DNSEXT co-chair <ogud@ogud.com>
References: <0D9E2974-B2A7-4345-B8A7-483CB20FD297@nokia.com> <45C83DA2.4010304@zurich.ibm.com> <200702061459.l16ExZE2079174@ogud.com>
In-Reply-To: <200702061459.l16ExZE2079174@ogud.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 7a0494a0224ca59418dd8f92694c1fdb
Cc: WG Chairs <wgchairs@ietf.org>, proto-team@ietf.org
Subject: [proto-team] Re: HEADS UP: new template for document shepherd write-up
X-BeenThere: proto-team@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: Process and Tools Team <proto-team.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/proto-team>, <mailto:proto-team-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:proto-team@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:proto-team-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/proto-team>, <mailto:proto-team-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: proto-team-bounces@ietf.org
I think the correct answer to that will be: the tracker will do it for you, once draft-ietf-proto-wgchair-tracker-ext is implemented. Alternatively, in the short term, there's going to be a WG Chairs wiki; actually there *is* a WG Chairs wiki. So you can put such hints there yourself. http://www1.tools.ietf.org/group/wgchairs/wiki/WikiStart The barrier to adding text there is much less than on the official site. Brian On 2007-02-06 16:09, Ólafur Guðmundsson /DNSEXT co-chair wrote: > This is great, can you also add to the web page, who should get the > publication request ie. AD's and iesg-secretary at ietf.org. > > Some of us forget to send to both required parties all the time :-) > > Olafur > > > At 03:34 06/02/2007, Brian E Carpenter wrote: >> And... we will maintain an up to date template at >> http://www.ietf.org/IESG/content/Doc-Writeup.html >> >> (plus a version tuned for individual submissions via AD at >> http://www.ietf.org/IESG/content/Indiv-Doc-Writeup.html ) >> >> Brian >> >> On 2007-02-05 22:12, Lars Eggert wrote: >>> Hi, WG chairs, >>> the IESG has just approved the -09 revision of the "document >>> shepherding" procedures document. Compared to earlier versions, the >>> shepherd write-up has changed. >>> When you prepare the document shepherd write-up for a draft that is >>> going to the IESG, please make sure to use the latest, final version >>> of the template. I'm attaching it for your convenience below; note >>> that minor changes might happen once the RFC Editor is done with it. >>> Also: Henrik has recently released a version of idnits that checks >>> for DOWNREFs and adds many other useful checks. Please make sure you >>> use that version to validate the document before you request >>> publication. Especially in the case of DOWNREFs, catching them before >>> an IETF last call will significantly speed up processing. >>> Lars >>> ---- >>> Document Shepherd Write-Up >>> (1.a) Who is the Document Shepherd for this document? Has the >>> Document Shepherd personally reviewed this version of the >>> document and, in particular, does he or she believe this >>> version is ready for forwarding to the IESG for publication? >>> (1.b) Has the document had adequate review both from key WG members >>> and from key non-WG members? Does the Document Shepherd have >>> any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that >>> have been performed? >>> (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? >>> (1.d) Does the Document Shepherd have any specific concerns or >>> issues with this document that the Responsible Area Director >>> and/or the IESG should be aware of? For example, perhaps he >>> or she is uncomfortable with certain parts of the document, or >>> has concerns whether there really is a need for it. In any >>> event, if the WG has discussed those issues and has indicated >>> that it still wishes to advance the document, detail those >>> concerns here. Has an IPR disclosure related to this document >>> been filed? If so, please include a reference to the >>> disclosure and summarize the WG discussion and conclusion on >>> this issue. >>> (1.e) How solid is the WG consensus behind this document? Does it >>> represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with >>> others being silent, or does the WG as a whole understand and >>> agree with it? >>> (1.f) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme >>> discontent? If so, please summarise the areas of conflict in >>> separate email messages to the Responsible Area Director. (It >>> should be in a separate email because this questionnaire is >>> entered into the ID Tracker.) >>> (1.g) Has the Document Shepherd personally verified that the >>> document satisfies all ID nits? (See >>> http://www.ietf.org/ID-Checklist.html and >>> http://tools.ietf.org/tools/idnits/). Boilerplate checks are >>> not enough; this check needs to be thorough. Has the document >>> met all formal review criteria it needs to, such as the MIB >>> Doctor, media type and URI type reviews? >>> (1.h) Has the document split its references into normative and >>> informative? Are there normative references to documents that >>> are not ready for advancement or are otherwise in an unclear >>> state? If such normative references exist, what is the >>> strategy for their completion? Are there normative references >>> that are downward references, as described in [RFC3967]? If >>> so, list these downward references to support the Area >>> Director in the Last Call procedure for them [RFC3967]. >>> (1.i) Has the Document Shepherd verified that the document IANA >>> consideration section exists and is consistent with the body >>> of the document? If the document specifies protocol >>> extensions, are reservations requested in appropriate IANA >>> registries? Are the IANA registries clearly identified? If >>> the document creates a new registry, does it define the >>> proposed initial contents of the registry and an allocation >>> procedure for future registrations? Does it suggest a >>> reasonable name for the new registry? See [RFC2434]. If the >>> document describes an Expert Review process has Shepherd >>> conferred with the Responsible Area Director so that the IESG >>> can appoint the needed Expert during the IESG Evaluation? >>> (1.j) Has the Document Shepherd verified that sections of the >>> document that are written in a formal language, such as XML >>> code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc., validate correctly in >>> an automated checker? >>> (1.k) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document >>> Announcement Write-Up. Please provide such a Document >>> Announcement Write-Up? Recent examples can be found in the >>> "Action" announcements for approved documents. The approval >>> announcement contains the following sections: >>> Technical Summary >>> Relevant content can frequently be found in the abstract >>> and/or introduction of the document. If not, this may be >>> an indication that there are deficiencies in the abstract >>> or introduction. >>> Working Group Summary >>> Was there anything in WG process that is worth noting? For >>> example, was there controversy about particular points or >>> were there decisions where the consensus was particularly >>> rough? >>> Document Quality >>> Are there existing implementations of the protocol? Have a >>> significant number of vendors indicated their plan to >>> implement the specification? Are there any reviewers that >>> merit special mention as having done a thorough review, >>> e.g., one that resulted in important changes or a >>> conclusion that the document had no substantive issues? If >>> there was a MIB Doctor, Media Type or other expert review, >>> what was its course (briefly)? In the case of a Media Type >>> review, on what date was the request posted? >>> Personnel >>> Who is the Document Shepherd for this document? Who is the >>> Responsible Area Director? >> > _______________________________________________ proto-team mailing list proto-team@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/proto-team
- [proto-team] Re: HEADS UP: new template for docum… Brian E Carpenter
- Re: [proto-team] Re: HEADS UP: new template for d… Allison Mankin
- [proto-team] HEADS UP: new template for document … Lars Eggert
- [proto-team] Re: HEADS UP: new template for docum… Brian E Carpenter
- Re: [proto-team] Re: HEADS UP: new template for d… Brian E Carpenter
- [proto-team] Re: HEADS UP: new template for docum… Brian E Carpenter
- [proto-team] Re: HEADS UP: new template for docum… Brian E Carpenter
- Re: [proto-team] Re: HEADS UP: new template for d… Henrik Levkowetz
- Re: [proto-team] Re: HEADS UP: new template for d… Brian E Carpenter
- Re: [proto-team] Re: HEADS UP: new template for d… Henrik Levkowetz
- Re: [proto-team] Re: HEADS UP: new template for d… Brian E Carpenter