Re: [proto-team] Re: Revision of shepherding draft for the deadline

Hi,

On Mar 6, 2006, at 15:53, David Meyer wrote:
>         I've read it over a few times and I like it. Others?

read it and agree, it's in good shape overall. I only have some minor  
comments:

(1) If RFC2119 language is applicable to a process document (and I'm  
not sure that it is), some parts of the document could use some  
RFC2119-ization. Example in Section 3.1: change "it is the task of  
the Shepherding WG Chair to do a document write-up" to "the  
Shepherding WG Chair MUST do a document write-up".

(2) The intro briefly notes that chairs can appoint secretaries as  
shepherds, but the process description in Section 3 never picks this  
up. A brief paragraph on what steps this involves may be good. We may  
also want to change terminology from "Shepherding WG Chair" to simply  
"Shepherd" or something similar for that reason.

Nits:

URL in Section 3.1 point 1.g should become a reference

typo in Section 3.1 point 1.h: s/publicatioin/publication/

same paragraph has some duplication: "as described in BCP 97, RFC  
3967 RFC 3967 [RFC3967]"

Section 3.1, last paragraph: not sure if IESG secretary email address  
should be hardcoded here - maybe just say "to the AD and the IESG  
secretary?"

Lars

PS: Aaron has used the PROTO process in DCCP in the past. We've  
dropped the ball a bit on this when Tom and me took over, but we're  
going to start to use PROTO again with draft-ietf-dccp-tfrc-voip-05,  
which has just passed WGLC.
-- 
Lars Eggert                                     NEC Network Laboratories

Re: [proto-team] Re: Revision of shepherding draft for the deadline

Attachment: smime.p7s