Re: WG Document Shepherd Write-Up Template: Call for review (Ends 22/05/2026)

[Mark Nottingham <[e-mail]>]

A couple of comments FWIW:

1) Many of the items in the write-up are in the form of yes/no questions, when read literally. It's not always clear whether such straightforward answers are satisfactory, or whether the IESG would like to draw out more detail. I'd suggest that if simple answers are adequate, this be changed so it's not a tick-box, rote work exercise for the shepherd. For example, instead of:

> For protocol documents, are there existing implementations of the contents of the document? If so, are those implementations reported somewhere, either in the document itself (as RFC 7942 recommends) or elsewhere (please state where)?
> Have potential implementers indicated their plans to implement?

why not:

> For protocol documents: please indicate below where implementations are recorded (note that RFC 7942 recommends this be in the document itself). If implementers have indicated plans to implement, please convey those.

And instead of:

> Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If so, please summarize the areas of conflict in separate email messages to the responsible Area Director. (NOTE: This should be in a separate email because this filled questionnaire will be publicly available.)

why not:

> If anyone has threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent, please summarise the areas of conflict in a separate email message (or messages) to the responsible Area Director. (NOTE: do not include in this questionnaire).

In other words, many of the items on this list should be expressed as tasks for the shepherd to do, not questions that they are answering. Some tasks might require the shepherd to write something in the response, but that shouldn't the the default; requiring them to answer "yes" / "no" to a list of questions is confusing (because there's doubt about how much detail the IESG really wants) and infantilising. 


2) "Describe how the document meets any required formal expert review criteria" is open-ended ("any") and ambiguous ("how"); the fact that a formal expert review took place and succeeded should be adequate. Suggest:

> Indicate the state of formal expert reviews (e.g., YANG doctor, media type, URI) that the document has undergone.


Cheers,

--
Mark Nottingham   https://www.mnot.net/