Guidance on Area Director Sponsoring of Documents
draft-iesg-sponsoring-guidelines-02
Discuss
Yes
(Cullen Jennings)
No Objection
(Dan Romascanu)
(David Kessens)
(Mark Townsley)
(Ross Callon)
Recuse
(Jari Arkko)
No Record
Deb Cooley
Erik Kline
Francesca Palombini
Gunter Van de Velde
Jim Guichard
John Scudder
Mahesh Jethanandani
Murray Kucherawy
Orie Steele
Paul Wouters
Roman Danyliw
Warren Kumari
Zaheduzzaman Sarker
Éric Vyncke
Summary: Needs a YES.
Deb Cooley
No Record
Erik Kline
No Record
Francesca Palombini
No Record
Gunter Van de Velde
No Record
Jim Guichard
No Record
John Scudder
No Record
Mahesh Jethanandani
No Record
Murray Kucherawy
No Record
Orie Steele
No Record
Paul Wouters
No Record
Roman Danyliw
No Record
Warren Kumari
No Record
Zaheduzzaman Sarker
No Record
Éric Vyncke
No Record
Brian Carpenter Former IESG member
(was Yes)
Discuss
Discuss
[Treat as non-blocking comment]
(2007-03-10)
Unknown
This DISCUSS is just to ensure the draft is not unintentionally approved, as we decided to make it an ION.
Cullen Jennings Former IESG member
Yes
Yes
()
Unknown
Lars Eggert Former IESG member
Yes
Yes
(2007-03-02)
Unknown
If it becomes a BCP, [draft-ietf-proto-wgchair-doc-shepherding] becomes a DOWNREF. From how it's cited, the reference can probably be changed to informative.
Sam Hartman Former IESG member
Yes
Yes
(2007-03-07)
Unknown
I think that this document should probably be an ION. If it is going to be an informational RFC, we need to clearly state in the introduction and abstract that this is a snapshot of the IESG's thinking at this point in time captured to go with the other related documents and that it may be changed without publication of a new RFC.
Dan Romascanu Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
David Kessens Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Magnus Westerlund Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(2007-03-07)
Unknown
In Section 4, why isn't BCPs discussed as a track being AD sponsored? Appendix B. Reference in the note to this document should be added.
Mark Townsley Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Ross Callon Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Russ Housley Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(2007-03-08)
Unknown
Section 2 references RFC 2119. However, these terms are not used. s/find sponsoring Area Director/find a sponsoring Area Director/ s/tracking the work earlier/tracking the work/ s/Last-Call period/Last Call period/ s/rules apply also to sponsored submissions/ /rules and conventions apply to sponsored submissions/ s/RFC Editor submission/independent submission to the RFC Editor/ s/On the other/On the other hand/
Ted Hardie Former IESG member
(was Discuss)
No Objection
No Objection
(2007-03-07)
Unknown
Re-reading this, I found this part sounded strange: When considering the choice between a sponsored document and an RFC Editor submission, the RFC 3932 rules play a role [RFC3932]. If it is likely that the document would generate a 3 (harmful to IETF work), 4 (violates IETF procedures) or 5 (extension requires IETF review) response based on RFC 3932 it is not appropriate for an independent submission. Sometimes such documents are suitable candidates for being sponsored, however. That almost looks like an AD might sponsor something which is harmful to the IETF's work or violates IETF procedures. Suggested replacement text: When considering the choice between a sponsored document and an RFC Editor submission, the RFC 3932 rules play a role [RFC3932]. Some documents require IETF review, as they extend IETF protocols and they may not go through the RFC Editor's independent submissions track (see response 5 of RFC3932).
Jari Arkko Former IESG member
Recuse
Recuse
()
Unknown