[proto-team] Re: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-proto-wgchair-doc-shepherding-06.txt

[Brian E Carpenter <[e-mail]>]

Waiting...

Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> Thanks for the update. Here are my comments. Most of them are small
> and could be dealt with after Last Call. However, I'd like to hear
> what you think about the first two.
> 
> 1. One of the things we realised in the PESCI team is that there is
> often confusion in the IETF between formal process (absolute
> requirements of the standards process as defined by applicable BCPs)
> and operational procedure (methods used to implement the formal
> process). There could be many different procedures that meet the
> requirements of the formal process. In that view, PROTO is a
> procedure. I have some trouble with the use of the word "process" -
> it makes complete sense as a usage of the English word "process"
> but it doesn't modify anything in the IETF "process". It seems you
> basically agree since this is intended to be an Informational RFC.
> 
> Suggestion: add a statement in the Introduction like:
> 
>    The PROTO process makes no formal change to the IETF standards
>    process. It is in fact a set of operational procedures intended
>    to make the formal process work as effectively as possible.
> 
> This would fit nicely after the reference to the IESG.
> 
> 2. I don't see anything about how the PROTO shepherd helps in
> summarizing and responding to IETF Last Call comments. That
> seems to be a gap at a fairly time critical moment (between LC
> and telechat). I've certainly seen WG chairs doing that.
> 
> Smaller comments:
> 
>> Abstract
> 
> 
> It's longer than we normally like these days. It could be chopped
> after the first paragraph (and add bullet 5 into the bullet list
> in the Introduction).
> 
>> 3.1.  WG Chair Write-Up for Publication Request
> 
> ...
> 
>>    in flux).  In addition to making life easier for the ADs, this is
>>    important for the IETF Chair's Gen-ART [GEN-ART] Directorate and
>>    other directorates, so they can know where to address reviews in
>>    addition to the Responsible Area Director.
> 
> 
> Gen-ART is a team, not a directorate.
> 
>> 3.3.  IESG Discuss Shepherding
> 
> ...
> 
>>    3.g) After the author(s) resolve the issues provided by the
>>         Shepherding WG Chair (i.e., the summarised DISCUSS issues), the
>>         Shepherding WG Chair reviews the updated document to ensure that
>>         (in her/his option) the DISCUSS issues have been resolved.
> 
> 
> That should be "reviews the updated document or the proposed Note to the
> RFC Editor".
> 
>> 4.  When Not to Use PROTO
>>
>>    As mentioned above, there are several cases in which the PROTO
>>    process SHOULD NOT be used.  These include
>>
>>    1.  Those cases in which the WG chair primary document author or
>>        editor, or the WG chair is the primary author or editor of a
>>        large percentage of the documents produced by the working group,
> 
> 
> There's an "is the" missing but more substantively, this is phrased for the
> case where there is only one WG chair. How about
> 
>    1.  Those cases in which a WG chair is the primary document author or
>        editor, or a WG chair is the primary author or editor of a
>        large percentage of the documents produced by the working group,
>        and no co-chair is available without this conflict,
> 
>> [I-D.iesg-discuss-criteria]
> 
> 
> There's no immediate plan to publish this as an RFC. However, there is
> a somewhat stable URL at
> http://www.ietf.org/u/ietfchair/discuss-criteria.html
> 
> (Side note - I don't agree completely with draft-alvestrand-ipod-00.txt
> but we definitely need something like that, and if we had it today
> that would be my preferred way to publish both the PROTO draft
> and the discuss-criteria.)
> 
> (Another side note - I will add the PROTO draft to the AOB list for
> the genarea open meeting.)
> 
>     Brian
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 

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