The Tao of IETF: A Novice's Guide to the Internet Engineering Task Force
draft-hoffman-tao4677bis-16
Revision differences
Document history
Date | Rev. | By | Action |
---|---|---|---|
2015-10-14
|
16 | (System) | Notify list changed from paul.hoffman@vpnc.org to (None) |
2014-05-08
|
16 | Suresh Krishnan | Assignment of request for Last Call review by GENART to Suresh Krishnan was rejected |
2013-02-04
|
16 | Tero Kivinen | Closed request for Last Call review by SECDIR with state 'No Response' |
2013-01-18
|
16 | (System) | Document has expired |
2013-01-09
|
16 | Russ Housley | State changed to Dead from AD is watching |
2012-08-16
|
16 | Russ Housley | State changed to AD is watching from Waiting for AD Go-Ahead |
2012-07-17
|
16 | Cindy Morgan | New version available: draft-hoffman-tao4677bis-16.txt |
2012-06-27
|
15 | (System) | State changed to Waiting for AD Go-Ahead from In Last Call |
2012-06-19
|
15 | Samuel Weiler | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Glen Zorn |
2012-06-19
|
15 | Samuel Weiler | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Glen Zorn |
2012-06-05
|
15 | Pearl Liang | IANA has reviewed draft-hoffman-tao4677bis-15, which is currently in Last Call, and has the following comments: IANA notes that this document does not contain a … IANA has reviewed draft-hoffman-tao4677bis-15, which is currently in Last Call, and has the following comments: IANA notes that this document does not contain a standard IANA Considerations section. After examining the draft, IANA understands that, upon approval of this document, there are no IANA Actions that need completion. |
2012-06-01
|
15 | Amy Vezza | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Ronald Bonica by Amy Vezza |
2012-05-31
|
15 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Suresh Krishnan |
2012-05-31
|
15 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Suresh Krishnan |
2012-05-30
|
15 | Amy Vezza | The following Last Call announcement was sent out: From: The IESG To: IETF-Announce Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org Subject: Last Call: (The Tao of IETF: A Novice's Guide … The following Last Call announcement was sent out: From: The IESG To: IETF-Announce Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org Subject: Last Call: (The Tao of IETF: A Novice's Guide to the Internet Engineering Task Force) to Informational RFC The IESG has received a request from an individual submitter to consider the following document: - 'The Tao of IETF: A Novice's Guide to the Internet Engineering Task Force' as Informational RFC The Tao of the IETF has grown a bit stale. For example, many of the tasks that were requested by email are now done with online tools, completely avoiding manual intervention by the Secretariat. This is an effort to refresh the document. The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2012-06-27. Exceptionally, comments may be sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting. Abstract This document describes the inner workings of IETF meetings and Working Groups, discusses organizations related to the IETF, and introduces the standards process. It is not a formal IETF process document but instead an informational overview. The file can be obtained via http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-hoffman-tao4677bis/ IESG discussion can be tracked via http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-hoffman-tao4677bis/ballot/ No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D. |
2012-05-30
|
15 | Amy Vezza | State changed to In Last Call from Last Call Requested |
2012-05-30
|
15 | Russ Housley | Ballot has been issued |
2012-05-30
|
15 | Russ Housley | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Russ Housley |
2012-05-30
|
15 | Russ Housley | Ballot writeup was changed |
2012-05-30
|
15 | Russ Housley | Created "Approve" ballot |
2012-05-30
|
15 | Russ Housley | Last call was requested |
2012-05-30
|
15 | Russ Housley | Ballot approval text was generated |
2012-05-30
|
15 | Russ Housley | Ballot writeup was generated |
2012-05-30
|
15 | Russ Housley | State changed to Last Call Requested from AD Evaluation::AD Followup |
2012-05-30
|
15 | Russ Housley | Last call announcement was changed |
2012-05-30
|
15 | Russ Housley | Last call announcement was generated |
2012-05-30
|
15 | (System) | Sub state has been changed to AD Followup from Revised ID Needed |
2012-05-30
|
15 | Paul Hoffman | New version available: draft-hoffman-tao4677bis-15.txt |
2012-05-30
|
14 | Russ Housley | State changed to AD Evaluation::Revised ID Needed from AD Evaluation |
2012-04-12
|
14 | Russ Housley | State changed to AD Evaluation from Publication Requested |
2012-04-12
|
14 | Russ Housley | Write-up provided by Paul Hoffman ... (1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? Why is … Write-up provided by Paul Hoffman ... (1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? Why is this the proper type of RFC? Is this type of RFC indicated in the title page header? Informational, because it was the last few times, yes. (2) 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 This document describes the inner workings of IETF meetings and Working Groups, discusses organizations related to the IETF, and introduces the standards process. It is not a formal IETF process document but instead an informational overview. Working Group Summary Not a WG document. Document Quality It is a fairly straight upgrade from RFC 4677. There are a handful of changes due to changes in the IETF, and a bunch of additions that people have requested. Personnel Paul Hoffman is the author, and Russ Housely is the responsible AD. (3) Briefly describe the review of this document that was performed by the Document Shepherd. If this version of the document is not ready for publication, please explain why the document is being forwarded to the IESG. I wrote the document. I think it is ready for IETF Last Call, and expect that new changes will be proposed during that review. (4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed? No. It has been extensively reviewed over the past few years, including by many members of the IETF leadership. (5) Do portions of the document need review from a particular or from broader perspective, e.g., security, operational complexity, AAA, DNS, DHCP, XML, or internationalization? If so, describe the review that took place. No. (6) Describe any specific concerns or issues that the Document Shepherd has 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 interested community has discussed those issues and has indicated that it still wishes to advance the document, detail those concerns here. None. (7) Has each author confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR disclosures required for full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79 have already been filed. If not, explain why. No IPR disclosures needed. (8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures. None filed. (9) How solid is the consensus of the interested community behind this document? Does it represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others being silent, or does the interested community as a whole understand and agree with it? I have heard no objection to anything in the document, and many people seem to like it a lot. (10) 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 publicly available.) No. (11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this document. (See http://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be thorough. Nothing significant found. (12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews. None needed. (13) Have all references within this document been identified as either normative or informative? All are "informative". (14) 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 plan for their completion? No. There is one dangling reference which is in the RFC Editor's queue: [RFCtobeXXXX] Kolkman, O. and J. Halpern, "RFC Editor Model (Version 2)", RFC tobeXXXX, March 2012. (15) Are there downward normative references references (see RFC 3967)? If so, list these downward references to support the Area Director in the Last Call procedure. No. (16) Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? Are those RFCs listed on the title page header, listed in the abstract, and discussed in the introduction? If the RFCs are not listed in the Abstract and Introduction, explain why, and point to the part of the document where the relationship of this document to the other RFCs is discussed. If this information is not in the document, explain why the interested community considers it unnecessary. I did not put the fact that this obsoletes RFC 4677 in the abstract because I didn't think it was important to the readers in the future. I would have no objection if someone really wanted this addition. (17) Describe the Document Shepherd's review of the IANA considerations section, especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the document. Confirm that all protocol extensions that the document makes are associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm that newly created IANA registries include a detailed specification of the initial contents for the registry, that allocations procedures for future registrations are defined, and a reasonable name for the new registry has been suggested (see RFC 5226). No IANA considerations. (18) List any new IANA registries that require Expert Review for future allocations. Provide any public guidance that the IESG would find useful in selecting the IANA Experts for these new registries. None. (19) Describe reviews and automated checks performed by the Document Shepherd to validate sections of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc. None. |
2012-04-12
|
14 | Russ Housley | Assigned to General Area |
2012-04-12
|
14 | Russ Housley | State Change Notice email list changed to paul.hoffman@vpnc.org |
2012-04-12
|
14 | Russ Housley | Stream changed to IETF |
2012-04-12
|
14 | Russ Housley | Intended Status changed to Informational |
2012-04-12
|
14 | Russ Housley | IESG process started in state Publication Requested |
2012-04-03
|
14 | Paul Hoffman | New version available: draft-hoffman-tao4677bis-14.txt |
2011-10-15
|
13 | (System) | New version available: draft-hoffman-tao4677bis-13.txt |
2011-06-12
|
12 | (System) | New version available: draft-hoffman-tao4677bis-12.txt |
2010-12-28
|
11 | (System) | New version available: draft-hoffman-tao4677bis-11.txt |
2010-07-06
|
10 | (System) | New version available: draft-hoffman-tao4677bis-10.txt |
2010-06-21
|
09 | (System) | New version available: draft-hoffman-tao4677bis-09.txt |
2010-05-25
|
08 | (System) | New version available: draft-hoffman-tao4677bis-08.txt |
2009-12-01
|
07 | (System) | New version available: draft-hoffman-tao4677bis-07.txt |
2009-06-28
|
06 | (System) | New version available: draft-hoffman-tao4677bis-06.txt |
2009-02-16
|
05 | (System) | New version available: draft-hoffman-tao4677bis-05.txt |
2008-11-02
|
04 | (System) | New version available: draft-hoffman-tao4677bis-04.txt |
2008-06-25
|
03 | (System) | New version available: draft-hoffman-tao4677bis-03.txt |
2008-02-20
|
02 | (System) | New version available: draft-hoffman-tao4677bis-02.txt |
2008-01-21
|
01 | (System) | New version available: draft-hoffman-tao4677bis-01.txt |
2008-01-17
|
00 | (System) | New version available: draft-hoffman-tao4677bis-00.txt |