Subject: IESG experimental shepherd writeup

From: Barry Leiba <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 3 May 2013 17:52:02 -0400

Chairs,

Some while ago I posted a pointer to a proposal for a very different
style of shepherd writeup, one that's more like four "essay questions"
and a separate checklist for the shepherd's use.  It's here, along
with some examples of how it's meant to be used:

http://trac.tools.ietf.org/group/iesg/trac/wiki/DraftShepherdWriteupWgAlternate

Feedback from the chairs was mixed; some liked it, but the few who
responded on this list mostly didn't.  That was, of course, before
anyone actually used it.

The IESG decided to give it a try as an *optional experiment*, and
I've been asking my chairs to use it for a while now.  The idea is to
make it clearer that we're requesting certain information that we need
for our evaluation, to make it easier to provide it, and to eliminate
the need to say anything at all for items where there's nothing that
needs to be said.

I'd like to ask the rest of the working group chairs the following:

- Please have a look at it, and consider trying it out, even if you
think you won't like it.  I'd really like to give it a good trial, and
see what happens after it's been used for a while.

- If you decide that you are willing to try it, please check with your
responsible AD first!  The shepherd, the chairs, and the AD all have
to agree to use it.  I don't want chairs who answer to other ADs to
get into conflicts with those ADs about this.

- If you really don't want to try it, or if your AD isn't interested,
that's perfectly fine.  Continue using the official writeup, as
always.

But, please, do consider trying it out, as an experiment for a while.

Thanks!

Barry, Applications AD

---

From: Paul Hoffman <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 3 May 2013 16:03:27 -0700

> the need to say anything at all for items where there's nothing that

Sean Turner, the AD for IPsecME, asked me to use it for the two documents that are just now coming out of the WG, and I thought it was great. As long as Sean thought that the answers were sufficient for him, I'm happy. There wasn't anything that I thought needed added.

--Paul Hoffman

---

From: Sean Turner <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 03 May 2013 21:53:53 -0400

> Sean Turner, the AD for IPsecME, asked me to use it for the two documents that are just now coming out of the WG, and I thought it was great. As long as Sean thought that the answers were sufficien…

BTW - I was happy with them ;)

There write-ups Paul is referring to can be found on these pages.  Look 
for the latest entries from Cindy.

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ipsecme-ad-vpn-problem/history/

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ipsecme-dh-checks/history/

These two documents were pretty straightforward though so I'll be 
curious to see where the line between free flowing prose and terse comes 
for a more complicated draft.

spt