Subject: Comment on draft-ietf-proto-wgchair-doc-shepherding-08

From: "Drage, Keith \(Keith\)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2007 19:38:37 +0100

Having now failed to provide such information twice on submission to the
IESG, could we include either a line in the writeup template, or as part
of the instructions on submitting to IESG secretary, that contains the
intended status the shepherded document is being submitted for (i.e.
INFORMATIONAL, PROPOSED STANDARD, etc).

Regards

Keith

Keith Drage
[email-masked]
tel: +44 1793 776249

---

From: "Tom-PT Taylor" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2007 13:58:37 -0500

I'll mention that XML2RFC has a category= parameter in the rfc element 
that can be set to indicate this. I had to read the DTD to find it.

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2007 11:58:29 +0100

Adding it to the template is a Good Idea, and maybe the shepherd
also needs the ability to set it in the tracker, which is a comment
on draft-ietf-proto-wgchair-tracker-ext.

See the "Intended status" example in section 3 of
http://www.ietf.org/ID-Checklist.html . For that matter,
see the third line of draft-ietf-proto-wgchair-doc-shepherding.

Also, the IESG likes to see this in WG charters for each deliverable.

    Brian

---

From: "Drage, Keith \(Keith\)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2007 12:15:39 +0100

It would be interesting to know what is regarded as the prime source of
this information.

In the examples I was referring to, the charter milestones clearly refer
to creation of a PS, the documents have "Intended status: Standards
Track" in the top left corner, but I was still asked what status the
document was intended to have by the IESG secretary.

Now I am not objecting to providing the information. What I want to
ensure is that we don't waste time on queries coming back from the IESG
secretary to get the information when it is omitted, and therefore that
sufficient prompts exist for me to provide the information when it is
needed.

By the way, does the ID-nits tool check the presence of the
"intended-status" line, or is this something we need to check manually? 

And where do we indicate what are the preferred values of the
"intended-status" line?

Regards

Keith 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Brian E Carpenter [mailto:[email-masked]] 
> Sent: 17 January 2007 10:58
> To: Tom-PT Taylor
> Cc: Drage, Keith (Keith); [email-masked]; [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: Comment on draft-ietf-proto-wgchair-doc-shepherding-08
> 
> Adding it to the template is a Good Idea, and maybe the 
> shepherd also needs the ability to set it in the tracker, 
> which is a comment on draft-ietf-proto-wgchair-tracker-ext.
> 
> http://www.ietf.org/ID-Checklist.html . For that matter, see 
> the third line of draft-ietf-proto-wgchair-doc-shepherding.
> 
> >> Having now failed to provide such information twice on 
> submission to 
> >> the IESG, could we include either a line in the writeup 
> template, or 
> >> as part of the instructions on submitting to IESG secretary, that 
> >> contains the intended status the shepherded document is 
> being submitted for (i.e.

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2007 14:20:09 +0100

> document was intended to have by the IESG secretary.

When you sent a Publication Request? That would be natural
in today's regime. They don't know by construction until it's
in the metadata, and it isn't in the metadata until someone
puts it there via the tracker.

> sufficient prompts exist for me to provide the information when it is

That was my point about adding it as a WG Chair feature in the tracker.
> "intended-status" line, or is this something we need to check manually? 

By the suck-it-and-see method, it's still manual.

> And where do we indicate what are the preferred values of the

Standards Track
Best Current Practice
Informational
Experimental
Historic (but you need a good reason for that one)

That's directly deducible from RFC 2026. Also see Appendix A of
http://xml.resource.org/authoring/draft-mrose-writing-rfcs.html.

      Brian

---

From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2007 15:35:16 +0200

> > In the examples I was referring to, the charter milestones clearly 
> > refer to creation of a PS, the documents have "Intended status: 
> > Standards Track" in the top left corner, but I was still asked what 
> > status the document was intended to have by the IESG secretary.
> 
> When you sent a Publication Request? That would be natural in 
> today's regime. They don't know by construction until it's in 
> the metadata, and it isn't in the metadata until someone puts 
> it there via the tracker.

And I don't think the secretariat actually reads the document write-up;
AFAIK they just paste it into the tracker. The status would hence need
to go elsewhere (currently: the text of the email to the secretariat) or
we need to tell them to read the write-up.

My personal preference would be to leave it out of the write-up.

Lars
-- 
NEW EMAIL: [email-masked]
NEW MOBILE: +358 50 48 24461
NEW JABBER: [email-masked]

---

From: Henrik Levkowetz <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2007 15:05:41 +0100

Hi,

> on draft-ietf-proto-wgchair-tracker-ext.

Right. What about adding the following to the tracker extensions
draft:

3.4.  Intended Status Field

   As part of the WG status handling, a field should also be available
   to indicate the intended status of a draft, with the possible values
   being (R-026):

   o  "Informational"

   o  "Experimental"

   o  "Best Current Practice"

   o  "Proposed Standard"

   o  "Draft Standard"

   o  "Full Standard"

   o  "Historic"

   When possible (for instance, when a draft is submitted through
   automated mechanisms, and contains a line in the first page document
   header which indicates the intended status, such as for instance
   "Intended status: Informational") this field should be automatically
   set by the submission tool.

Apart from this, the comments on -01 seems to have slowed to a stop;
if there's agreement on the above addition and no other new comments,
I propose to put out a -02 update later today or tomorrow.

	Henrik

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2007 17:15:27 +0100

> My personal preference would be to leave it out of the write-up.

As long as it is in the publication request (unless already set in
the tracker), I'm fine with that.

     Brian