Subject: [proto-team] PROTO process feedback

From: [email-masked]
Date: Wed, 9 Nov 2005 22:13:49 -0500

I'm somewhat of a late comer to PROTO, as I only started using
it in September, ... but I'm busy making up for lost time, as 
I've now produced 11 PROTO writeups.  I chair 3 WGs, all of
which are at the stage of having documents to publish.

I discovered that the questionnaire needs a header - here's
the one I use, with elements in <angle brackets> filled in
for each individual writeup:

   PROTO writeup: 
                     <draft title>
                     <draft name>

   Requested Publication Status: <fill in>
   PROTO shepherd: David L. Black (<role, e.g., [x] WG Chair>)
   -----------------------------------------------------------

I found it important to include the Requested Publication Status
(i.e., Proposed Standard, Experimental, Informational, etc.).
This is particularly useful when the writeup is sent to the WG
email list.

The questionnaire is useful in increasing the amount of information
that I send to the Area Director with a publication request.  In
particular, question 1.c) asking about need for more review is
a useful vehicle to ask for expert review from a specific area
up front rather than waiting for problems to arise when that areas'
ADs get around to reviewing the document.  For example, my OPS
area WG completed an IP-over-<X> document, and 1.c) was a convenient
place to ask for an INT Area Expert Review, which was useful.

I've taken question 1.h about normative references to IDs and
broadened my answers to list every normative reference to an ID.
This puts all the info about possible normative reference delays
in one place.  In essence, this is showing the work of how I
reach the conclusion that there are no normative reference issues.

The writeups have gotten easier as I've done more of them.  I
would suggest collecting a set of a dozen or so good writeups
on a web site somewhere that shepherds can refer to as examples
of what ADs would like, rather than the current direction to
look at recent protocol action announcement (e.g., many of
these have very brief "Protocol Quality" sections).

Finally, Henrik's online nit checker is a godsend - if I had
to hand-check 11 drafts for nits, I'd probably still be at it.
In practice, for the nits (question 1.g), there is some level
of nits that are acceptable (e.g., boilerplate was ok when
draft was submitted, but is now out of date) and some level
that are not (e.g., no Security Considerations).  The next
version of the PROTO draft could usefully offer some guidance
on what's acceptable (has to be fixed if a new version is
submitted) vs. not acceptable (new version of draft required
prior to publication request in order to fix it now).

Thanks,
--David (ips, imss, rddp WG chair)
----------------------------------------------------
David L. Black, Senior Technologist
EMC Corporation, 176 South St., Hopkinton, MA  01748
+1 (508) 293-7953             FAX: +1 (508) 293-7786
[email-masked]        Mobile: +1 (978) 394-7754
----------------------------------------------------

_______________________________________________
proto-team mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/proto-team