Subject: HEADS UP: new template for document shepherd write-up

From: Lars Eggert <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2007 13:12:10 -0800

Hi, WG chairs,

the IESG has just approved the -09 revision of the "document  
shepherding" procedures document. Compared to earlier versions, the  
shepherd write-up has changed.

When you prepare the document shepherd write-up for a draft that is  
going to the IESG, please make sure to use the latest, final version  
of the template. I'm attaching it for your convenience below; note  
that minor changes might happen once the RFC Editor is done with it.

Also: Henrik has recently released a version of idnits that checks  
for DOWNREFs and adds many other useful checks. Please make sure you  
use that version to validate the document before you request  
publication. Especially in the case of DOWNREFs, catching them before  
an IETF last call will significantly speed up processing.

Lars

----

Document Shepherd Write-Up

    (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?

    (1.b)  Has the document had adequate review both from key WG members
           and from key non-WG members?  Does the Document Shepherd have
           any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that
           have been performed?

    (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?

    (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 WG has discussed those issues and has indicated
           that it still wishes to advance the document, detail those
           concerns here.  Has an IPR disclosure related to this  
document
           been filed?  If so, please include a reference to the
           disclosure and summarize the WG discussion and conclusion on
           this issue.

    (1.e)  How solid is the WG consensus behind this document?  Does it
           represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with
           others being silent, or does the WG as a whole understand and
           agree with it?

    (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.)

    (1.g)  Has the Document Shepherd personally verified that the
           document satisfies all ID nits?  (See
           http://www.ietf.org/ID-Checklist.html 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?

    (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].

    (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 suggest a
           reasonable name for the new registry?  See [RFC2434].  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?

    (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?

    (1.k)  The IESG approval announcement includes a Document
           Announcement Write-Up.  Please provide such a Document
           Announcement Write-Up?  Recent examples can be found in the
           "Action" announcements for approved documents.  The approval
           announcement contains the following sections:

           Technical Summary
              Relevant content can frequently be found in the abstract
              and/or introduction of the document.  If not, this may be
              an indication that there are deficiencies in the abstract
              or introduction.

           Working Group Summary
              Was there anything in WG process that is worth noting?   
For
              example, was there controversy about particular points or
              were there decisions where the consensus was particularly
              rough?

           Document Quality
              Are there existing implementations of the protocol?   
Have a
              significant number of vendors indicated their plan to
              implement the specification?  Are there any reviewers that
              merit special mention as having done a thorough review,
              e.g., one that resulted in important changes or a
              conclusion that the document had no substantive  
issues?  If
              there was a MIB Doctor, Media Type or other expert review,
              what was its course (briefly)?  In the case of a Media  
Type
              review, on what date was the request posted?

           Personnel
              Who is the Document Shepherd for this document?  Who is  
the
              Responsible Area Director?

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 06 Feb 2007 09:34:42 +0100

And... we will maintain an up to date template at
http://www.ietf.org/IESG/content/Doc-Writeup.html

(plus a version tuned for individual submissions via AD at
http://www.ietf.org/IESG/content/Indiv-Doc-Writeup.html )

    Brian

On 2007-02-05 22:12, Lars Eggert wrote:
> going to the IESG, please make sure to use the latest, final version of 
> the template. I'm attaching it for your convenience below; note that 
> minor changes might happen once the RFC Editor is done with it.
> 
> Also: Henrik has recently released a version of idnits that checks for 
> DOWNREFs and adds many other useful checks. Please make sure you use 
> that version to validate the document before you request publication. 
> Especially in the case of DOWNREFs, catching them before an IETF last 
> call will significantly speed up processing.
> 
> Lars
> 
> ----
> 
>           or she is uncomfortable with certain parts of the document, or
>           concerns here.  Has an IPR disclosure related to this document
>    (1.f)  Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme
>           separate email messages to the Responsible Area Director.  (It
>           not enough; this check needs to be thorough.  Has the document
>           informative?  Are there normative references to documents that
>           strategy for their completion?  Are there normative references
>              Was there anything in WG process that is worth noting?  For
>              Are there existing implementations of the protocol?  Have a
>              conclusion that the document had no substantive issues?  If
>              what was its course (briefly)?  In the case of a Media Type
>              Who is the Document Shepherd for this document?  Who is the

---

From: Ólafur Guðmundsson /DNSEXT co-chair <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 06 Feb 2007 10:09:44 -0500

This is great, can you also add to the web page, who should get the
publication request ie. AD's and iesg-secretary at ietf.org.

Some of us forget to send to both required parties all the time :-)

         Olafur

At 03:34 06/02/2007, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
>>going to the IESG, please make sure to use the latest, final 
>>version of the template. I'm attaching it for your convenience 
>>below; note that minor changes might happen once the RFC Editor is 
>>done with it.
>>for DOWNREFs and adds many other useful checks. Please make sure 
>>you use that version to validate the document before you request 
>>publication. Especially in the case of DOWNREFs, catching them 
>>before an IETF last call will significantly speed up processing.
>>Lars
>>----

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 06 Feb 2007 16:52:02 +0100

I think the correct answer to that will be: the tracker will
do it for you, once draft-ietf-proto-wgchair-tracker-ext
is implemented.

Alternatively, in the short term, there's going to be
a WG Chairs wiki; actually there *is* a WG Chairs wiki.
So you can put such hints there yourself.
http://www1.tools.ietf.org/group/wgchairs/wiki/WikiStart

The barrier to adding text there is much less than on
the official site.

     Brian