Skip to main content

Guidance on Area Director Sponsoring of Documents
draft-iesg-sponsoring-guidelines-02

Revision differences

Document history

Date Rev. By Action
2015-10-14
02 (System) Notify list changed from iesg-chairs@ietf.org, jari.arkko@piuha.net to (None)
2012-08-22
02 (System) post-migration administrative database adjustment to the No Objection position for Ted Hardie
2007-09-08
02 (System) Document has expired
2007-04-10
02 Russ Housley State Changes to Dead from AD is watching by Russ Housley
2007-03-10
02 Brian Carpenter [Ballot discuss]
This DISCUSS is just to ensure the draft is not unintentionally approved, as we decided to make it an ION.
2007-03-09
02 Brian Carpenter State Changes to AD is watching from IESG Evaluation::AD Followup by Brian Carpenter
2007-03-09
02 Brian Carpenter [Note]: 'Final decision on 2007-03-08 to make this an ION.' added by Brian Carpenter
2007-03-09
02 Brian Carpenter Status date has been changed to 2007-03-09 from 2007-02-21
2007-03-09
02 (System) Removed from agenda for telechat - 2007-03-08
2007-03-08
02 Amy Vezza State Changes to IESG Evaluation::AD Followup from IESG Evaluation by Amy Vezza
2007-03-08
02 Ted Hardie [Ballot Position Update] Position for Ted Hardie has been changed to No Objection from Discuss by Ted Hardie
2007-03-08
02 Russ Housley
[Ballot comment]
Section 2 references RFC 2119.  However, these terms are not used.

  s/find sponsoring Area Director/find a sponsoring Area Director/

  s/tracking …
[Ballot comment]
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/
2007-03-08
02 Russ Housley [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Russ Housley
2007-03-08
02 Mark Townsley [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Mark Townsley
2007-03-08
02 Ross Callon [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Ross Callon
2007-03-08
02 Amy Vezza State Changes to IESG Evaluation from Waiting for AD Go-Ahead by Amy Vezza
2007-03-08
02 Dan Romascanu [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Dan Romascanu
2007-03-07
02 David Kessens [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by David Kessens
2007-03-07
02 Ted Hardie
[Ballot discuss]
As a "getting my position recorded" statement, I believe the community feedback that this should be an ION was pretty strong.  I'll clear …
[Ballot discuss]
As a "getting my position recorded" statement, I believe the community feedback that this should be an ION was pretty strong.  I'll clear this on the call after we've discussed it.
2007-03-07
02 Ted Hardie [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded by Ted Hardie
2007-03-07
02 Ted Hardie
[Ballot comment]
Re-reading this, I found this part sounded strange:

When considering the choice between a sponsored document and an RFC
  Editor submission, the …
[Ballot comment]
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).
2007-03-07
02 Sam Hartman
[Ballot comment]
I think that this document should probably be an ION.  If it is going
to be an informational RFC, we need to clearly …
[Ballot comment]
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.
2007-03-07
02 Sam Hartman [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded by Sam Hartman
2007-03-07
02 (System) New version available: draft-iesg-sponsoring-guidelines-02.txt
2007-03-07
02 Magnus Westerlund
[Ballot comment]
In Section 4, why isn't BCPs discussed as a track being AD sponsored?

Appendix B. Reference in the note to this document should …
[Ballot comment]
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.
2007-03-07
02 Magnus Westerlund [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Magnus Westerlund
2007-03-06
02 Cullen Jennings [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded by Cullen Jennings
2007-03-06
02 Jari Arkko [Ballot Position Update] New position, Recuse, has been recorded by Jari Arkko
2007-03-02
02 Lars Eggert [Ballot comment]
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.
2007-03-02
02 Lars Eggert [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded by Lars Eggert
2007-02-28
02 Brian Carpenter
[Ballot discuss]
During Last Call, it was asserted that if this is a process document, it should be a BCP, and if not, it should …
[Ballot discuss]
During Last Call, it was asserted that if this is a process document, it should be a BCP, and if not, it should be an ION. The IESG should discuss this explicitly before deciding how to proceed.
2007-02-28
02 Brian Carpenter [Ballot Position Update] Position for Brian Carpenter has been changed to Discuss from Yes by Brian Carpenter
2007-02-28
02 Brian Carpenter [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Brian Carpenter
2007-02-28
02 Brian Carpenter Ballot has been issued by Brian Carpenter
2007-02-28
02 Brian Carpenter Created "Approve" ballot
2007-02-28
02 Brian Carpenter Placed on agenda for telechat - 2007-03-08 by Brian Carpenter
2007-02-21
02 (System) State has been changed to Waiting for AD Go-Ahead from In Last Call by system
2007-02-21
02 Yoshiko Fong IANA Last Call Comments:

NO IANA Considerations section.
We understand this document to have NO IANA Actions.
2007-02-21
02 Brian Carpenter Status date has been changed to 2007-02-21 from 2007-02-07
2007-02-21
02 Brian Carpenter [Note]: 'Decided on 2007-01-25 to make this an RFC not an ION, but Last Call comments have reopened that question.' added by Brian Carpenter
2007-02-16
02 Samuel Weiler Request for Last Call review by SECDIR Completed. Reviewer: Kurt Zeilenga.
2007-02-13
02 Samuel Weiler Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Kurt Zeilenga
2007-02-13
02 Samuel Weiler Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Kurt Zeilenga
2007-02-07
02 Amy Vezza Last call sent
2007-02-07
02 Amy Vezza State Changes to In Last Call from Last Call Requested by Amy Vezza
2007-02-07
02 Brian Carpenter State Changes to Last Call Requested from AD Evaluation by Brian Carpenter
2007-02-07
02 Brian Carpenter Last Call was requested by Brian Carpenter
2007-02-07
02 (System) Ballot writeup text was added
2007-02-07
02 (System) Last call text was added
2007-02-07
02 (System) Ballot approval text was added
2007-02-07
02 Brian Carpenter State Changes to AD Evaluation from Publication Requested by Brian Carpenter
2007-02-07
02 Brian Carpenter State Changes to Publication Requested from AD is watching by Brian Carpenter
2007-02-07
02 Brian Carpenter Status date has been changed to 2007-02-07 from
2007-02-07
02 Brian Carpenter [Note]: 'Decided on 2007-01-25 to make this an RFC not an ION' added by Brian Carpenter
2007-02-01
01 (System) New version available: draft-iesg-sponsoring-guidelines-01.txt
2007-01-27
02 Brian Carpenter [Note]: 'Decided on 2006-01-25 to make this an RFC not an ION' added by Brian Carpenter
2007-01-27
02 Brian Carpenter Intended Status has been changed to Informational from None
2007-01-15
02 Brian Carpenter [Note]: 'RFC or ION? To be decided' added by Brian Carpenter
2007-01-15
02 Brian Carpenter Draft Added by Brian Carpenter in state AD is watching
2007-01-15
02 Brian Carpenter [Note]: 'RFC or ION? To be decidedd' added by Brian Carpenter
2006-10-18
00 (System) New version available: draft-iesg-sponsoring-guidelines-00.txt