[rfc-i] FYI sub-series and RFC 1150 - proposal to update
housley at vigilsec.com (Russ Housley) Mon, 06 June 2011 18:38 UTC
From: "housley at vigilsec.com"
Date: Mon, 06 Jun 2011 14:38:45 -0400
Subject: [rfc-i] FYI sub-series and RFC 1150 - proposal to update
In-Reply-To: <1D24D8C6-44DC-4555-AA7D-644728639CC5@vigilsec.com>
References: <20110422192019.21F8EE083C@ietfc.amsl.com> <89469E29-02ED-4E71-9293-D6F00E63DF3C@vigilsec.com> <4DB25E93.4070404@gmail.com> <Pine.LNX.4.64.1104251525040.15312@joust.gpcc.itd.umich.edu> <BANLkTimcFYxJ_DNP+rkDqRNR-cALSujb7Q@mail.gmail.com> <1D24D8C6-44DC-4555-AA7D-644728639CC5@vigilsec.com>
Message-ID: <E5A6C4DA-0226-4CEA-9765-C395AD91E6E2@vigilsec.com>
Here is the write-up that was provided as part of the publication request. Russ = = = = = = = = Write-up for draft-iesg-rfc1150bis-01 (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? Russ Housley will be the shepherd. He has reviewed the document, and he believes it is ready for publication. (1.b) Has the document had adequate review both from key members of the interested community and others? Does the Document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed? Version -00 of the document was discussed on the rfc-interest mail list, and comments resulted in version -01 of the document. (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? No concerns. (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 interested community has discussed those issues and has indicated that it still wishes to advance the document, detail those concerns here. No concerns. (1.e) How solid is the consensus of the interested community behind this document? Does it represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others being silent, or does the interested community as a whole understand and agree with it? The IESG has strong consensus to conclude the FYI sub-series. (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.) No concerns. (1.g) Has the Document Shepherd personally verified that the document satisfies all ID nits? (See the Internet-Drafts Checklist 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? ID nits reports no problems. No concerns about formal review. (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]. References are split. There are no downward references. (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 suggested a reasonable name for the new registry? See [I-D.narten-iana-considerations-rfc2434bis]. 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? There are no actions for IANA. (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? There is no formal language in the document. (1.k) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document Announcement Write-Up. Please provide such a Document Announcement Writeup? Recent examples can be found in the "Action" announcements for approved documents. The approval announcement contains the following sections: Technical Summary This document concludes the For Your Information (FYI) sub-series of RFCs, established by RFC 1150 for use by the IETF User Services Area, which no longer exists. The IESG does not intend to make any further additions to this RFC sub-series, and this document provides a record of this decision. This document also obsoletes RFC 1150 and changes the status of RFC 1150 to Historic. Working Group Summary This document is not the product of any IETF working group. Document Quality This document was discussed on the rfc-interest mail list. No one spoke against closure of the FYI sub-series on that mail list. RFC Editor Note Please correct a typo in the first paragraph of Section 1: OLD: ... information that regarding the Internet and might be interesting to ... NEW: ... information regarding the Internet that might be interesting to ...
- [rfc-i] FYI sub-series and RFC 1150 - proposal to… Mykyta Yevstifeyev
- [rfc-i] FYI sub-series and RFC 1150 - proposal to… Peter Koch
- [rfc-i] FYI sub-series and RFC 1150 - proposal to… Mykyta Yevstifeyev
- [rfc-i] FYI sub-series and RFC 1150 - proposal to… John Levine
- [rfc-i] FYI sub-series and RFC 1150 - proposal to… Bob Hinden
- [rfc-i] FYI sub-series and RFC 1150 - proposal to… Paul Hoffman
- [rfc-i] FYI sub-series and RFC 1150 - proposal to… Bob Braden
- [rfc-i] FYI sub-series and RFC 1150 - proposal to… Bob Braden
- [rfc-i] FYI sub-series and RFC 1150 - proposal to… Olaf Kolkman
- [rfc-i] FYI sub-series and RFC 1150 - proposal to… John R Levine
- [rfc-i] FYI sub-series and RFC 1150 - proposal to… Russ Housley
- [rfc-i] FYI sub-series and RFC 1150 - proposal to… SM
- [rfc-i] FYI sub-series and RFC 1150 - proposal to… Russ Housley
- [rfc-i] FYI sub-series and RFC 1150 - proposal to… Peter Koch
- [rfc-i] FYI sub-series and RFC 1150 - proposal to… Mykyta Yevstifeyev
- [rfc-i] FYI sub-series and RFC 1150 - proposal to… Peter Saint-Andre
- [rfc-i] FYI sub-series and RFC 1150 - proposal to… SM
- [rfc-i] FYI sub-series and RFC 1150 - proposal to… Russ Housley
- [rfc-i] FYI sub-series and RFC 1150 - proposal to… Mykyta Yevstifeyev
- [rfc-i] FYI sub-series and RFC 1150 - proposal to… Mykyta Yevstifeyev
- [rfc-i] FYI sub-series and RFC 1150 - proposal to… Susan Harris
- [rfc-i] FYI sub-series and RFC 1150 - proposal to… Mykyta Yevstifeyev
- [rfc-i] FYI sub-series and RFC 1150 - proposal to… Olaf Kolkman
- [rfc-i] FYI sub-series and RFC 1150 - proposal to… Mykyta Yevstifeyev
- [rfc-i] FYI sub-series and RFC 1150 - proposal to… Russ Housley
- [rfc-i] FYI sub-series and RFC 1150 - proposal to… Russ Housley
- [rfc-i] FYI sub-series and RFC 1150 - proposal to… Russ Housley
- [rfc-i] FYI sub-series and RFC 1150 - proposal to… Mykyta Yevstifeyev
- [rfc-i] FYI sub-series and RFC 1150 - proposal to… Mykyta Yevstifeyev
- [rfc-i] FYI sub-series and RFC 1150 - proposal to… Russ Housley
- [rfc-i] FYI sub-series and RFC 1150 - proposal to… Russ Housley
- [rfc-i] FYI sub-series and RFC 1150 - proposal to… Brian E Carpenter