Document Shepherding from Working Group Last Call to Publication
draft-ietf-proto-wgchair-doc-shepherding-09

1. Section 3 

During IESG evaluation, following up on all IESG feedback ("DISCUSS" and "COMMENT" items) related to the shepherded document, as described in Section 3.3.

Any reason not to include "ABSTAIN" contents as feedback? 

2. Is there any reference for who is the Responsible Area Director? Is this the same as WG Area Advisor? 

3. In 2e I am slightly confused by the use of the construct 'strongly RECOMMENDED'. I believe that we should not allow usage of intermediate constructs between 2119 keywords and would recommend to pick one of RECOMMENDED (with no strength marking) or MUST.

4. Section 6 - 'If the document shepherding process is not used, the Responsible Area Director acts as Document Shepherd, just as he or she did in the past.' - better say '... just as per the existing procedures of shepherding by Area Directors.' (he or she may not have been an AD in the past)

Nit:

This parenthetical expression is not closed:

(because it was created by the "PROcess
   and TOols" or PROTO [PROTO] team,

The document consistently says that the document
shepherd should be a single person (see section 3.
especially).  I have personally run PROTO with both
working group chairs taking joint responsibility.  I 
think it works.  Softening the language on that to
allow WG chairs to work in double harness would
be valuable, in my opinion. 

Section 3.1 adds this section to the common write-up:

Personnel
             Who is the Document Shepherd for this document?  Who is the
             Responsible Area Director?

above that, the document says:

 A final sentence of the Document Announcement Write-Up, simply placed
   as a line at the end of the "Document Quality" section, can state the
   names of the Document Shepherd and the Responsible Area Director,
   because the announcement will not otherwise acknowledge them.  The
   Document Shepherd SHOULD add this information and the Responsible
   Area Director SHOULD add it if it is not already there.

That seems to indicate that the same information goes in the Document quality
section, rather than in its own heading.  Resolving that seems to me useful.

On IANA actions, the document says:

   In summary, the task of shepherding the IANA actions is overlooked
   but is as important to coordinate and manage as all the other
   document reviews the Document Shepherd has managed.  As with those,
   the Document Shepherd contributes greatly to quality and timeliness
   of the document by effective and responsive shepherding of the IANA
   requests.

Does this mean to say "is often overlooked"?

In Section 6, the document says:

1.  Cases, where the Document Shepherd is the primary author or
       editor of a large percentage of the documents produced by the
       working group.
2.  Cases, where the Responsible Area Director expects communication
       difficulties with the Document Shepherd (either due to
       experience, strong views stated by the Document Shepherd, or
       other issues).

   3.  Cases, where the working group itself is either very old, losing
       energy, or winding down, i.e., cases, where it would not be
       productive to initiate new processes or procedures.

The syntax of these is hard to parse. I think the last of them applies
only to working groups that pre-date PROTO (it would not introduce
a new procedure to tired WGs that post-date PROTO).  As something
that is either already dated or soon will be, should it be struck?

Frankly, I would recommend cutting that whole section, and replacing
it with "When the responsible area director or proposed PROTO shepherd
feel that the process is not appropriate, the responsible area director
may server as document shepherd, as she or he does for non-WG
documents."