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: =?UTF-8?B?w5NsYWZ1ciBHdcOwbXVuZHNzb24gL0ROU0VYVCBjby1jaGFpcg==?=
 <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
Cc: WG Chairs <wgchairs@ietf.org>, proto-team@ietf.org
Subject: [proto-team] Re: HEADS UP: new template for document shepherd write-up
Precedence: list
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, =C3=93lafur Gu=C3=B0mundsson /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.
>=20
> Some of us forget to send to both required parties all the time :-)
>=20
>         Olafur
>=20
>=20
> 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=20
>>> shepherding" procedures document. Compared to earlier versions, the=20
>>> shepherd write-up has changed.
>>> When you prepare the document shepherd write-up for a draft that is=20
>>> 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=20
>>> that minor changes might happen once the RFC Editor is done with it.
>>> Also: Henrik has recently released a version of idnits that checks=20
>>> for DOWNREFs and adds many other useful checks. Please make sure you =

>>> use that version to validate the document before you request=20
>>> publication. Especially in the case of DOWNREFs, catching them before=
=20
>>> 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 membe=
rs
>>>           and from key non-WG members?  Does the Document Shepherd ha=
ve
>>>           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 wi=
th
>>>           AAA, internationalization or XML?
>>>    (1.d)  Does the Document Shepherd have any specific concerns or
>>>           issues with this document that the Responsible Area Directo=
r
>>>           and/or the IESG should be aware of?  For example, perhaps h=
e
>>>           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 indicat=
ed
>>>           that it still wishes to advance the document, detail those
>>>           concerns here.  Has an IPR disclosure related to this docum=
ent
>>>           been filed?  If so, please include a reference to the
>>>           disclosure and summarize the WG discussion and conclusion o=
n
>>>           this issue.
>>>    (1.e)  How solid is the WG consensus behind this document?  Does i=
t
>>>           represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with=

>>>           others being silent, or does the WG as a whole understand a=
nd
>>>           agree with it?
>>>    (1.f)  Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extr=
eme
>>>           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 a=
re
>>>           not enough; this check needs to be thorough.  Has the docum=
ent
>>>           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 t=
hat
>>>           are not ready for advancement or are otherwise in an unclea=
r
>>>           state?  If such normative references exist, what is the
>>>           strategy for their completion?  Are there normative referen=
ces
>>>           that are downward references, as described in [RFC3967]?  I=
f
>>>           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 bod=
y
>>>           of the document?  If the document specifies protocol
>>>           extensions, are reservations requested in appropriate IANA
>>>           registries?  Are the IANA registries clearly identified?  I=
f
>>>           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 t=
he
>>>           document describes an Expert Review process has Shepherd
>>>           conferred with the Responsible Area Director so that the IE=
SG
>>>           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 approva=
l
>>>           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 b=
e
>>>              an indication that there are deficiencies in the abstrac=
t
>>>              or introduction.
>>>           Working Group Summary
>>>              Was there anything in WG process that is worth noting?  =
For
>>>              example, was there controversy about particular points o=
r
>>>              were there decisions where the consensus was particularl=
y
>>>              rough?
>>>           Document Quality
>>>              Are there existing implementations of the protocol?  Hav=
e a
>>>              significant number of vendors indicated their plan to
>>>              implement the specification?  Are there any reviewers th=
at
>>>              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 revie=
w,
>>>              what was its course (briefly)?  In the case of a Media T=
ype
>>>              review, on what date was the request posted?
>>>           Personnel
>>>              Who is the Document Shepherd for this document?  Who is =
the
>>>              Responsible Area Director?
>>
>=20


_______________________________________________
proto-team mailing list
proto-team@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/proto-team