Re: Shepherd writeup - Question 18 on normative references and advancement

Lucas Pardue <lucaspardue.24.7@gmail.com> Sun, 22 May 2022 19:53 UTC

MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CALGR9obf=6V62yeWtHC5_Ee2XLGawJh-CM5Aq8WnHSwruQJCMA@mail.gmail.com> <24A98E0A-14D4-43F8-911B-C367037A3C4D@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <24A98E0A-14D4-43F8-911B-C367037A3C4D@gmail.com>
From: Lucas Pardue <lucaspardue.24.7@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 22 May 2022 20:53:00 +0100
Message-ID: <CALGR9oawGfjOr-pFKATvgvfDrHj3Vjhy+104N+2Aag3zh+NZRQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Shepherd writeup - Question 18 on normative references and advancement
To: Yoav Nir <ynir.ietf@gmail.com>
Cc: Working Chairs <wgchairs@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000b170b905df9f1282"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/wgchairs/QI-W88aYU9X-Bmd8kTWHaZxwJYQ>
Precedence: list

Hi Yoav,

On Sun, 22 May 2022, 19:54 Yoav Nir, <ynir.ietf@gmail.com> wrote:

> In this context, “not ready for advancement” means “not ready to be
> submitted to the IESG for publication”.
>
> If it has passed the IESG and is in the RFC Editor’s queue, it’s done. You
> can treat it as if it’s already an RFC.
>
> Problem documents would be documents that have been abandoned, documents
> with no current authors/editors, that kind of thing.
>

I would tend to agree with your interpretation.

So that leads me to ask why is the simple question asked in such an obtuse
way? It doesn't seem too difficult to make the text a bit more explicit
such as:

"Does the document contain normative references to other IETF documents
that have not been approved by the IESG for publication? If yes, please
identify any known issues that are delaying or blocking submission to/
approval by the IESG. Furthermore, if there are known issues, please list
any known remediation actions, plans or resources."

I'm sure with more wordsmithing it could be improved. The main point is,
don't make the questionnaire an act of interpretation if we know the useful
information the answers should contain.

Cheers
Lucas

> Yoav
>
> On 22 May 2022, at 18:27, Lucas Pardue <lucaspardue.24.7@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hello WG chairs,
>
> Reviewing again the updated shepherd writeup template[1], I'm left with an
> ambiguous understanding of what Question 18 is trying to convey.
>
> > 18. Are there normative references to documents that are not ready for
> advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state? If they exist, what is
> the plan for their completion?
>
> What does advancement mean here? For instance, if the document being
> shepherded has a normative reference to a document that is in the RFC
> editor queue, is that "not ready for advancement"? What if there was a
> reference to a document in AUTH48, where all authors had approved it?
>
> Taking a different perspective, if the shepherded doc has a normative
> reference to a non-IETF doc, what does "advancement" mean there?
>
> Cheers,
> Lucas
>
> [1] - https://chairs.ietf.org/documents/qa-style-writeup-template
>
>
>

Shepherd writeup - Question 18 on normative refer… Lucas Pardue
Re: Shepherd writeup - Question 18 on normative r… Yoav Nir
Re: Shepherd writeup - Question 18 on normative r… Lucas Pardue
Re: Shepherd writeup - Question 18 on normative r… Lars Eggert