Document History: draft-ietf-modpod-group-process-12
1. Does the working group (WG) consensus represent the strong concurrence
of a few individuals, with others being silent, or did it reach broad agreement?
The MODPOD WG consensus represents the broad agreement of many individuals
against a more narrow group of dissenters. Silence has not been a hallmark of
the MODPOD consensus process.
2. Was there controversy about particular points, or were there decisions
where the consensus was particularly rough?
The consensus process has involved dense discussions leading to the rapid
resolution of many issues, with a few recurring themes of controversy.
• Should the moderator team have direct powers over communication
channels, or should it be merely advisory in nature? • Should moderation
policy be set by the moderator team, or directly by community consensus? •
What should the appeal path be? What failsafes prevent rogue moderator
actions? • What is the right amount of transparency for moderator
actions? At what interval should there be reporting, and how public should that
reporting be? • How will we know if it is working or not? Should there be
a built-in review after a period of time? Should we run an experiment?
Despite these controversies, the chairs judge that the consensus of the group
is that this document should advance to IESG review.
3. Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme
discontent? If so, please summarize 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.)
A separate mail will be sent to the responsible Area Director.
4. For protocol documents, are there existing implementations of the
contents of the document? Have a significant number of potential implementers
indicated plans to implement? Are any existing implementations reported
somewhere, either in the document itself (as RFC 7942 recommends) or elsewhere
(where)?
N/A
Additional Reviews
5. Do the contents of this document closely interact with technologies in
other IETF working groups or external organizations, and would it therefore
benefit from their review? Have those reviews occurred? If yes, describe which
reviews took place.
While the contents of this document do not interact with other IETF
technologies, the proposed moderation team has a set of interactions with other
bodies and processes in the IETF workstream, including the ombudsteam, area
directors, working group chairs, and others. The chairs believe relevant
stakeholders have reviewed those proposed interactions and support the
advancement of this document.
6. Describe how the document meets any required formal expert review
criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.
N/A
7. If the document contains a YANG module, has the final version of the
module been checked with any of the recommended validation tools for syntax and
formatting validation? If there are any resulting errors or warnings, what is
the justification for not fixing them at this time? Does the YANG module comply
with the Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA) as specified in RFC
8342?
N/A
8. Describe reviews and automated checks performed to validate sections of
the final version of the document written in a formal language, such as XML
code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, CBOR's CDDL, etc.
N/A
Document Shepherd Checks
9. Based on the shepherd's review of the document, is it their opinion
that this document is needed, clearly written, complete, correctly designed,
and ready to be handed off to the responsible Area Director?
This document is needed, it is written clearly enough, it completes the
chartered deliverable, and is designed to satisfy the community need that
motivated the creation of this working group. It is ready to be handed off to
the responsible Area Director.
10. Several IETF Areas have assembled lists of common issues that their
reviewers encounter. For which areas have such issues been identified
and addressed? For which does this still need to happen in subsequent
reviews?
N/A (no such Gen Area list).
11. What type of RFC publication is being requested on the IETF stream (Best
Current Practice, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard,
Informational, Experimental or Historic)? Why is this the proper type
of RFC? Do all Datatracker state attributes correctly reflect this intent?
Best Current Practice. This follows the status of similar process documents in
the IETF. This is properly reflected in the datatracker.
12. Have reasonable efforts been made to remind all authors of the
intellectual property rights (IPR) disclosure obligations described in BCP 79?
To the best of your knowledge, have all required disclosures been filed? If
not, explain why. If yes, summarize any relevant discussion, including links to
publicly-available messages when applicable.
The authors have been reminded. Note that this is not a protocol specification
and does not contain BCP 79 intellectual property.
13. Has each author, editor, and contributor shown their willingness to be
listed as such? If the total number of authors and editors on the front page
is greater than five, please provide a justification.
Yes, the two editors have expressed their willingness. Currently many people
are thanked in the acknowledgments, some of whom are also credited with
contributing to the document. All have given their okay to be listed as
contributors.
14. Document any remaining I-D nits in this document. Simply running the
idnits tool is not enough; please review the "Content Guidelines" on
authors.ietf.org. (Also note that the current idnits tool generates some
incorrect warnings; a rewrite is underway.)
I-D nits currently complains that the updated and obsoleted RFCs not being
properly called out (see 19 below).
15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the
IESG Statement on Normative and Informative References.
As this is a process document rather than a protocol specification, the IESG
Statement does not apply directly. All of the “normative” references in
modpod-group-processes-11 are to process BCPs that interact with these new
processes.
16. List any normative references that are not freely available to anyone.
Did the community have sufficient access to review any such normative
references?
All normative references are freely available, and the community has had
sufficient access to review all normative references.
17. Are there any normative downward references (see RFC 3967 and BCP
97) that are not already listed in the DOWNREF registry? If so,
list them.
No.
18. Are there normative references to documents that are not ready to be
submitted to the IESG for publication or are otherwise in an unclear state?
If so, what is the plan for their completion?
No.
19. Will publication of this document change the status of any existing
RFCs? If so, does the Datatracker metadata correctly reflect this and are those
RFCs listed on the title page, in the abstract, and discussed in the
introduction? If not, explain why and point to the part of the document where
the relationship of this document to these other RFCs is discussed.
Yes, it will do some fairly complicated things here, it obsoletes RFC3934 and
RFC3683, and updates RFC9245 and RFC2418. This is listed on the title page, and
discussed in the Introduction, but is not currently in the abstract as well.
I’ve notified in the authors of this requirement - though honestly, it is
sufficiently called out without enumerating them yet again in the abstract.
20. 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 aspects of the document requiring IANA assignments
are associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm
that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm that
each newly created IANA registry specifies its initial contents, allocations
procedures, and a reasonable name (see RFC 8126).
This document contains no considerations for the IANA.
21. List any new IANA registries that require Designated Expert Review for
future allocations. Are the instructions to the Designated Expert clear?
Please include suggestions of designated experts, if appropriate.
N/A