Document Writeup - IETF Anti-Harassment Procedures -
draft-farrresnickel-harassment-09
(1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard, Internet
Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)?
Intended status: Best Current Practice
Why is this the proper type of RFC?
This document changes IETF procedures and updates other IETF procedures.
Is this type of RFC indicated in the title page header?
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
Version 09 addresses the comments gotten during last call
There are issues arrised during IESG Evaluation
(http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-farrresnickel-harassment/ballot/) and in
IETF mailing list after Last Call. The plan is to correct the issues and start
a new short Last Call on the corrections. --> Version 08 address these comments.
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 the document considered in any WG, and if so, why was it not adopted as a
work item there? Was there controversy about particular points that caused the
WG to not adopt the document?
It is a not technical topic, it is related with the behaviour of people
into the IETF. It got the review of several mailing list in the IETF,
such as: IETF, diversity and systers.
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?
The document was discussed with HR personnel at ISOC (specifically
Linda Klieforth) who reviewed the document for feasibility
Personnel
Who is the Document Shepherd?
Ines Robles
Who is the Responsible Area Director?
Jari Arkko
(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.
This document was discussed basically in the diversity, IETF, systers
Mailing lists.
(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of
the reviews that have been performed?
No
(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.
No
(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.
Adrian Farrel confirmed. the author will retain their copyright and
publish the material under CC0 on their own web site. Pete Resnick
confirmed.
(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If so,
summarize any discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures.
No
(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?
The document is very clear, involved the opinion of members from
diverses areas. The shepherd believe that it got consensus.
(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. The lasts thread in ietf Mailing list were in march 2014, and the
draft was updated in January 2015, no new comments gotten since then.
(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.
Summary: 0 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 0 warnings (==), 5 comments (--).
References [1] and [2] are going to be fixed by the RFC Editor
Miscellaneous warnings:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
(Using the creation date from RFC2418, updated by this document, for
RFC5378 checks: 1998-09-09)
-- The document seems to lack a disclaimer for pre-RFC5378 work, but may
have content which was first submitted before 10 November 2008. If you
have contacted all the original authors and they are all willing to grant
the BCP78 rights to the IETF Trust, then this is fine, and you can ignore
this comment. If not, you may need to add the pre-RFC5378 disclaimer.
(See the Legal Provisions document at
http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info for more information.)
-- The document date (January 6, 2015) is 9 days in the past. Is this
intentional?
Checking references for intended status: Best Current Practice
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
(See RFCs 3967 and 4897 for information about using normative references
to lower-maturity documents in RFCs)
-- Looks like a reference, but probably isn't: '1' on line 542
-- Looks like a reference, but probably isn't: '2' on line 545
-- Looks like a reference, but probably isn't: '3' on line 548
(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such
as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.
Not apply
(13) Have all references within this document been identified as either
normative or informative?
The references are going to be updated as normative
(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?
The references are going to be updated as normative
(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.
Not apply.
(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.
This document update RFC 2418, it was mentioned in the abstract and
mentioned in the introduction as well.
(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).
Not apply.
(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.
Not apply.
(19) Describe reviews and automated checks performed by to validate sections of
the document written in a formal language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB
definitions, etc.
Not apply.