Router Requirements 'Method of Work'

[Frank Kastenholz <[e-mail]>]

Hi,

I've been giving some thought to exactly how to go about the business
of getting updates to the master document and reviewing them, folding
them into the master document and so on.  Bill Manning and I
have discussed this a bit and we've come up with the following
general scheme:

The master document is the internet draft of the 'big document' --
the thing we approved for rfc-hood in Seattle. It's currently named
something like draft-rreq-iprouters-require-01.txt.

In Seattle, we've solicited volunteers to contribute text for specific
technological changes. These will all be fairly lengthy and probably
will involve changes to many parts of the master document.

What we'd like to propose is that any change which requires that
the working group review the change (e.g. all technology changes,
and significant editorial changes) either for technical completness,
correctness, or accuracy,  OR consistancy with the master document
or other proposed changes, be contributed to the working group as
an Internet Draft. Each draft should meet the following rough
requirements:
- Each draft should be self-contained so that the working group
  can discuss the technology of the draft by reviewing only the
  draft. This way the group can discuss each item without having
  to wander all over 200+ pages of the master document.
- Each draft should cover only one change. This will allow the working
  group to focus its attention on one topic at a time.
- Each draft should have at least three parts:
  - Overview
    This would be a paragraph or two describing, at the very highest
    level, what the draft proposes. It should not be longer than
    two paragraphs.
  - Change
    This is a detailed, selfcontained section that actually describes the
    change. This should be as detailed and specific as possible,
    ideally to the point where it could stand as its own technical
    specification.
  - Editing Instructions
    This section contains any specific instructions that should be made
    to the editor. It may go as far as identifying actual text to delete
    from and providing new text to add to the master document.
  This format is intended as a rough guide to contributors of text.
  No doubt, each contributor will add, delete, and/or change this
  to fit the specific needs of his or her contribution.

  An important point is the editing instructions. These are instructions
  to me, as the editor of the master document, of what changes should
  be made. This is important. By having detailed instructions, there
  will be a smaller chance that I will misunderstand the wg's intent,
  and there will be a smaller chance that I will miss or lose a
  critical message from the mailing list.
  
Finally, simple editorial changes (spelling, grammar, bad wording,
and so on) can be sent directly to me.

--
Frank Kastenholz
FTP Software
2 High Street
North Andover, Mass. USA 01845
[phone]