[proto-team] Fwd: One more spin of draft-ietf-proto-wgchair-doc-shepherding

[Lars Eggert <[e-mail]>]

Begin forwarded message:

> From: Brian E Carpenter <[e-mail]>
> Date: November 17, 2006 10:40:55 AM GMT+01:00
> To: Henrik Levkowetz <[e-mail]>, Lars Eggert  
> <[e-mail]>, David Meyer <[e-mail]>,  
> [e-mail]
> Cc: [e-mail]
> Subject: One more spin of draft-ietf-proto-wgchair-doc-shepherding
>
> Authors,
>
> Although there is still one open DISCUSS, there was a very positive
> IESG discussion on yesterday's telechat. However, there are enough  
> changes
> needed that I am asking for one more spin of the draft. I assume you
> will want to run it past the team after that, although I hope
> none of this is contentious.
>
> 1. Please make all the changes currently logged as an RFC Editor note
> (attached below for convenience).
>
> 2. To deal with Sam's DISCUSS, which he cleared, I promised to request
> text updates in the I-D tracker to
> a) align terminology: always refer to "responsible AD" and never
>    to "shepherding AD" and always refer to "document shepherd" and
>    not to "PROTO shepherd" ("PROTO" being jargon).
>
> b) add a "Personnel" section and rename "Protocol Quality" to
>    "Document Quality" in the blank writeup.
>
> I will do this once the draft is approved.
>
> 3. Re Magnus' cleared DISCUSS,
>
>    Part 1: Magnus understands why this isn't BCP. I promised
>    to review the question whether it should be an RFC or an ION when
>    the new version apppears.
>
>    Part 2: is covered by the existing RFC Editor note.
>
> 4. Re Russ' DISCUSS. Russ wasn't on the call.
>
>    Part 1: "The examples in Appendix A do not follow the outline
>    proposed in Section 3.1 paragraph (1.k)." Please fix.
>
>    Part 2: "it seems like it would be
>    better to post the Document Shepherd Write-Up Template, and put a
>    pointer to it in this document.  This document could include the
>    current template with an appropriate introduction, like:
>
>     The initial Document Shepherd Write-Up Template is included here,
>     but changes are expected over time."
>
>    Makes sense, and we can host the latest template in the IESG
>    pages, so you could add "The latest version is available
>    in the IESG section of the IETF web site." (I don't want to
>    assume the PROTO web site will exist for ever.) I will do
>    this when the draft is approved.
>
> 5. I'd like you to look at all the other AD comments in the tracker.
>    That should lead to a number of small changes.
>
>    Sam is concerned that paragraph (b) at the very end of (3.h)
>    might be read to encourage appeals. Of course, that all depends on
>    the meaning of "last resort" so there may be nothing you can  
> change.
>
> Thanks
>
>     Brian
>
> -----existing updates------
>
> Before the last sentence of Section 1, please insert:
>
> NEW:
> Section 4 covers IANA actions and Section 5 discusses
> shepherding after IESG approval.
>
>
> At the end of section 3.2 please add:
>
> NEW:
>     (2.i)  If the document requires an IETF Last Call, and the AD
>           concludes that significant issues were raised during
>           the Last Call, then steps (2.b) through (2.h) need to be
>           applied, addressing the Last Call issues.  This requires
>           the Responsible Area Director to present to the Document
>           Shepherd any Last Call Issues raised only to the IESG.
>
> Please replace the two existing citations of
> [I-D.narten-iana-considerations-rfc2434bis] by informative citations
> of [RFC2434].
>
> At the end of the first paragraph of section 4, after what is now a
> citation of [RFC2434], please add:
>
> NEW:
> At the time of this publication, RFC 2434 is in revision
> [I-D.narten-iana-considerations-rfc2434bis] and
> the updates are and will be of value to the Document Shepherd.
> Note that Document Shepherd MUST determine (by individual review
> and consultation with others) what is the most recent and the most
> applicable IANA information and guidance for his or her document,
> be it the overall guidance, or external documents in his or her area,
> or in other areas.  An example of an external document is [RFC4020].
>
> In section 4, last paragraph:
>
> OLD:
> In summary, the task of shepherding the IANA actions is overlooked
>
> NEW:
> In summary, the task of shepherding the IANA actions is often  
> overlooked
>
>

Lars
-- 
Lars Eggert                                     NEC Network Laboratories

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