Subject: [proto-team] small issues with draft-ietf-proto-wgchair-doc-shepherding-07

From: Lars Eggert <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2006 18:33:39 +0200

Hi,

Allison has pointed out that I forgot to include one of her suggested  
additions in the -07 version of draft-ietf-proto-wgchair-doc- 
shepherding. She has also suggested another small addition.

Below is a revision that includes both of Allison's changes and also  
has some very minor language and RFC2119-terminology changes.

I'll ask that this be posted as -08 tomorrow unless I hear otherwise  
from someone.

Lars

-- 
Lars Eggert                                     NEC Network Laboratories

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

---

From: Henrik Levkowetz <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2006 19:26:12 +0200

Hi,

> I'll ask that this be posted as -08 tomorrow unless I hear otherwise  

Overall the changes look good to me, except for the change in (2.g)
and (3.f) where I prefer the old wording (..issues have been resolved..)
instead of ..issues are resolved..

Regards,

	Henrik

---

From: Lars Eggert <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 28 Jun 2006 14:05:30 +0200

> instead of ..issues are resolved..

OK, will undo those before submission.

Lars

---

From: Lars Eggert <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 28 Jun 2006 18:23:07 +0200

Hi,

I just realized that there is another inconsistency in -07: The title  
is "Document Shepherding from Working Group Last Call to IESG  
Approval", but we have some text in there that says:

    A Document Shepherd's responsibilities include: [...]

    o  Following up on IANA and RFC Editor requests in the post-approval
       shepherding of the document.

and further down:

    Consequently, the document shepherding process includes follow-up
    work during all document-processing stages after Working Group Last
    Call, i.e., during AD Evaluation of a document, during IESG
    evaluation, and during post-approval processing by IANA and the RFC
    Editor.

Since the rest of the text doesn't talk about how to deal with the  
IANA and the RFC Editor, I propose to remove the bullet and change  
the other paragraph to:

    Consequently, the document shepherding process includes follow-up
    work during all document-processing stages after Working Group Last
    Call until IESG approval of the document.

Comments?

Thanks,
Lars

---

From: Henrik Levkowetz <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 28 Jun 2006 19:55:45 +0200

Hi Lars,

>     Call until IESG approval of the document.

I think it's right that this document describes shepherding from
WG last call to IESG approval.  However, that being the subject of
this draft doesn't necessarily mean that the shepherding process
stops there -- only that this document doesn't describe more...

I think that it's been the intention that a document shepherd keeps
shepherding the document all the way to published document (other
PROTO and/or IESG members will chime in with protests or agreements
here, I'm sure) so we should either not change the paragraphs you
quote above, or clarify them in a slightly different manner.

If we first can establish whether we agree on the shepherding process
continuing beyond the IESG approval, I'm sure we can propose some
alternative text for the paragraphs above.  It'd be good to have an
explicit agreement first, though.

Regards,

	Henrik