IETF Working Groups' Secretaries
draft-secretaries-good-practices-07

[Ballot comment]
Two very minor comments:

1. I would like to see RFC 2418 as a normative reference.  That's not because it initially defines the job of the working group secretary, but because it defines how working groups operate in general, and I think it's therefore critical to understand that in order to put the delegation to a secretary into proper perspective.

2. In Section 5 you say this:

  Section 3 has listed the typical functions and responsibilities of WG
  Secretaries. The role of a given WG Secretary can range from a few of
  these to the full spectrum of them, and even beyond.

I don't think "typical" is really the right word here: do you know of any working group that delegates all of those things to the secretary?  I think those are typical WG chair functions and responsibilities, but not (at least not yet) typical secretary functions.  It might be that "possible" is better?  Or perhaps "...listed the typical functions and responsibilities of WG Chairs that might be delegated to a WG Secretary."

The authors and the Document Shepherd of
  IETF Working Groups' Secretaries
  draft-secretaries-good-practices-07
request that the document is published as an Informational RFC

(1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard,
Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? Why is
this the proper type of RFC? Is this type of RFC indicated in the
title page header?

  We request that the document is published as an Informational RFC.
  The document provides information relevant to the IETF process, but
  does not define any mechanisms or set out operational rules.
 
  Consideration was given to presenting this document as a BCP
  as part of BCP 25 and an update to RFC 2418. Indeed, the document
  was taken to IETF last call in that shape, but comments received
  during last call indicated that the update to 2418 was minor and that
  the community was not supportive of this becoming part of BCP 25.
  The document has been revised to make it purely Informational.

  The document clearly indicates that it is Informational.

(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

  The Working Group Secretary's role was succinctly defined in RFC
  2418. However, this role has greatly evolved and increased both in
  value and scope, since the writing of RFC 2418. This document thus
  provides a compilation of good practices and general guidelines
  regarding the fulfilment of the role.

  This document is intended for established Working Group Secretaries,
  individuals motivated by taking up that role, or anyone else simply
  interested in understanding better the Working Group Secretary's
  role. This document may also be useful for Working Group Chairs to
  better appreciate and help develop the value of Working Group
  Secretaries.

Working Group Summary

  This document has never been considered for working group
  adoption, since it cuts across all IETF working groups.

  The intention from the start has been to progress the document as
  an AD sponsored RFC.
   
Document Quality

  The question about implementations of this document largely
  depends on the exact meaning of "implementation". There are
  almost 20 IETF working groups that have secretaries, in some
  cases more than one.

  The document summarizes the experiences from  number of
  current working group secretaries and has been shared for review
  by all WG secretaries and chairs.

  There was considerable comment during IETF last call on the
  IETF list and on the WG Chairs list. The authors have engaged
  with this feedback in detail and have made a careful revision of
  the document including moving it from BCP to Informational. I
  am satisfied that the changes address the comments received
  and the reviewers have been afforded several opportunities to
  respond to the changes.

(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.

    The doucment shepherd first read the document when the -00
    version were posted and once more at version -02 (?).
    Since this is not a working group document and the question
    if I would be willing to Shepherd document did not come until
    version -04 the early review could be viewed as reviews from
    interested party.

    The Document Shepherd have reviewed version -04 in detail and
    comments have be sent to the authors.

    The Document Shepherd believe that version -05 is ready for
    publication.

    Version -06 resulted from AD review, and version -07 addresses
    comments received during IETF last call.

(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or
    breadth of the reviews that have been performed?

    No - the document has been well discussed on the working group
    chairs mailing list.

    It has also been well discussed amongst most of the IETF WG
    secretaries, the discussion and new version were shared among
    the weceetaries after version -01.

(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 such reviews are necessary.

(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 such concerns.

(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.

    The Document Shepherd does not believe that any IPRs are
    possible against this document, it describes well established
    practices.

(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document?
If so, summarize any discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR
disclosures.

    There are no IPR disclosures against this document.

(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?

      It is the opinion of the Document Shepherd that there is a
      very solid consensus on this document.

      IETF last call revealed a significant number of views that
      supported the broad idea of this work, but had issues with
      the details. The update since last call has been circulated
      and reviewers have been given the opportunity to comment.
      Since only support has been expressed for the new revision
      it may be assumed that consensus has been reached.

(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 such threats!

(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.

  idnits runs clean.

(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such as
the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.

    No such reviews necessary.

(13) Have all references within this document been identified as either normative or informative?

      Yes the refrences has been correctly split. All references are
      informative.

(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?

      N/A

(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.

    No downward references.

(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.

    The publication of this document will not change the status of any
    other document.

(17) Describe the Document Shepherd's review of the IANA considerations
section, especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the
document.

      There are no requests for IANA actions in this document.

(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.

    There are no such new registries created.

(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.

      No such formal reviews required.

The authors and the Document Shepherd of
  IETF Working Groups' Secretaries
  draft-secretaries-good-practices-07
request that the document is published as an Informational RFC

(1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard,
Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? Why is
this the proper type of RFC? Is this type of RFC indicated in the
title page header?

  We request that the document is published as an Informational RFC.
  The document provides information relevant to the IETF process, but
  does not define any mechanisms or set out operational rules.
 
  Consideration was given to presenting this document as a BCP
  as part of BCP 25 and an update to RFC 2418. Indeed, the document
  was taken to IETF last call in that shape, but comments received
  during last call indicated that the update to 2418 was minor and that
  the community was not supportive of this becoming part of BCP 25.
  The document has been revised to make it purely Informational.

  The document clearly indicates that it is Informational.

(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

  The Working Group Secretary's role was succinctly defined in RFC
  2418. However, this role has greatly evolved and increased both in
  value and scope, since the writing of RFC 2418. This document thus
  provides a compilation of good practices and general guidelines
  regarding the fulfilment of the role.

  This document is intended for established Working Group Secretaries,
  individuals motivated by taking up that role, or anyone else simply
  interested in understanding better the Working Group Secretary's
  role. This document may also be useful for Working Group Chairs to
  better appreciate and help develop the value of Working Group
  Secretaries.

Working Group Summary

  This document has never been considered for working group
  adoption, since it cuts across all IETF working groups.

  The intention from the start has been to progress the document as
  an AD sponsored RFC.
   
Document Quality

  The question about implementations of this document largely
  depends on the exact meaning of "implementation". There are
  almost 20 IETF working groups that have secretaries, in some
  cases more than one.

  The document summarizes the experiences from  number of
  current working group secretaries and has been shared for review
  by all WG secretaries and chairs.

  There was considerable comment during IETF last call on the
  IETF list and on the WG Chairs list. The authors have engaged
  with this feedback in detail and have made a careful revision of
  the document including moving it from BCP to Informational. I
  am satisfied that the changes address the comments received
  and the reviewers have been afforded several opportunities to
  respond to the changes.

(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.

    The doucment shepherd first read the document when the -00
    version were posted and once more at version -02 (?).
    Since this is not a working group document and the question
    if I would be willing to Shepherd document did not come until
    version -04 the early review could be viewed as reviews from
    interested party.

    The Document Shepherd have reviewed version -04 in detail and
    comments have be sent to the authors.

    The Document Shepherd believe that version -05 is ready for
    publication.

    Version -06 resulted from AD review, and version -07 addresses
    comments received during IETF last call.

(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or
    breadth of the reviews that have been performed?

    No - the document has been well discussed on the working group
    chairs mailing list.

    It has also been well discussed amongst most of the IETF WG
    secretaries, the discussion and new version were shared among
    the weceetaries after version -01.

(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 such reviews are necessary.

(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 such concerns.

(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.

    The Document Shepherd does not believe that any IPRs are
    possible against this document, it describes well established
    practices.

(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document?
If so, summarize any discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR
disclosures.

    There are no IPR disclosures against this document.

(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?

      It is the opinion of the Document Shepherd that there is a
      very solid consensus on this document.

      IETF last call revealed a significant number of views that
      supported the broad idea of this work, but had issues with
      the details. The update since last call has been circulated
      and reviewers have been given the opportunity to comment.
      Since only support has been expressed for the new revision
      it may be assumed that consensus has been reached.

(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 such threats!

(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.

  idnits runs clean.

(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.

    No such reviews necessary.

(13) Have all references within this document been identified as either normative or informative?

      Yes the refrences has been correctly split. All references are
      informative.

(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?

      N/A

(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.

    No downward references.

(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.

    The publication of this document will not change the status of any
    other document.

(17) Describe the Document Shepherd's review of the IANA considerations
section, especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the
document.

      There are no requests for IANA actions in this document.

(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.

    There are no such new registries created.

(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.

      No such formal reviews required.

The authors and the Document Shepherd of
  IETF Working Groups' Secretaries
  draft-secretaries-good-practices-07
request that the document is published as an Informational RFC

(1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard,
Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? Why is
this the proper type of RFC? Is this type of RFC indicated in the
title page header?

  We request that the document is published as an Informational RFC.
  The document provides information relevant to the IETF process, but
  does not define any mechanisms or set out operational rules.
 
  Consideration was given to presenting this document as a BCP
  as part of BCP 25 and an update to RFC 2418. Indeed, the document
  was taken to IETF last call in that shape, but comments received
  during last call indicated that the update to 2418 was minor and that
  the community was not supportive of this becoming part of BCP 25.
  The document has been revised to make it purely Informational.

  The document clearly indicates that it is Informational.

(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

    This document describes the role of a secretary in an IETF WG.
    It does not lay down normative rules, but indicates possible
    tasks for the WG seretary.
    The document (section 2) also updates 6.2 of RFC 2418, since
    there have been a long time and new developments since the role
    of the working group secretary was first introduced in that
    document.

Working Group Summary

    This document has never been considered for working group
    adoption, since it cuts across all IETF working groups.
    The intention from the start has been to progress the document as
    an AD sponsored RFC.
   

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 question about implementations of this document largely
    depends on the exact meaning of "implementation".

    There are almost 20 IETF working groups that have secretaries,
    in som cases more than one.

    The document summarizes the experiences from  number of
    current working group secretaries .

Personnel

    Loa Andersson is the Document Shepherd.
    Adrian Farrel is the responsibel AD, sponsoring the document.


(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.

    The doucment shepherd first read the document when the -00
    version were posted and once more at version -02 (?).
    Since this is not a working group document and the question
    if I would be willing to Shepherd document did not come until
    version -04 the early review could be viewed as reviews from
    interested party.

    The Document Shepherd have reviewed version -04 in detail and
    comments have be sent to the authors.

    The Document Shepherd believe that version -05 is ready for
    publication.

(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or
    breadth of the reviews that have been performed?

    No - the document has been well discussed on the working group
    chairs mailing list.

    It has also been well discussed amongst most of the IETF WG
    secretaries, the discussion and new version were shared among
    the weceetaries after version -01.

(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 such reviews are necessary.

(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 such concerns.

(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.

      The Document Shepherd does not believe that any IPRs are
      possible against this document, it describes well established
      practices.

(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document?
If so, summarize any discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR
disclosures.

    There are no IPR disclosures against this document.

(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?

      It is the opinion of the Document Shepherd that there is a
      very solid consensus on this document.

(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 such threats!

(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.

    The nits tool points to the fact that RFC 2418 is referenced and
    suggest that the pre-RFC5378 boiler plate should be used. However this
    document does not include and text from RFC 2418 and the pre-RFC53778
    boiler plate is not needed.

(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.

    No such reviews necessary.

(13) Have all references within this document been identified as either normative or informative?

      Yes the refrences has been correctly split into normative and
      informative refrences.

(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 single normative reference is to an existing RFC.

(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.

    No downward references.

(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.

    The publiction of this document will not change the status of any
    other document.

(17) Describe the Document Shepherd's review of the IANA considerations
section, especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the
document.

      There are no requests for IANA actions in this document.

(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.

    There are no such new registries created.

(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.

      No such formal reviews required.

IESG/Authors:

IANA has reviewed draft-secretaries-good-practices-06, which is currently in Last Call, and has the following comments:

We understand that, upon approval of this document, there are no IANA Actions that need completion.

While it is helpful for the IANA Considerations section of the document to remain in place upon publication, if the authors prefer to remove it, IANA doesn't object.

If this assessment is not accurate, please respond as soon as possible.

The following Last Call announcement was sent out:

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org
Sender:
Subject: Last Call:  (IETF Working Groups' Secretaries) to Best Current Practice


The IESG has received a request from an individual submitter to consider
the following document:
- 'IETF Working Groups' Secretaries'
  as Best Current Practice

The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the
ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2014-07-10. Exceptionally, comments may be
sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the
beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting.

Abstract

  The Working Group Secretary's role was succinctly defined in RFC
  2418. However, this role has greatly evolved and increased both in
  value and scope, since the writing of RFC 2418. This document updates
  RFC 2418 by providing a new definition of the Working Group
  Secretary's role. This document also provides a compilation of good
  practices and general guidelines regarding the fulfilment of the
  role.

  This document is intended for established Working Group Secretaries,
  individuals motivated by taking up that role, or anyone else simply
  interested in understanding better the Working Group Secretary's
  role. This document may also be useful for Working Group Chairs to
  better appreciate and help develop the value of Working Group
  Secretaries.

  This document would be published as part of BCP 25.

The file can be obtained via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-secretaries-good-practices/

IESG discussion can be tracked via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-secretaries-good-practices/ballot/


No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D.

AD review
========

In what is a very well written and thoughtful document I have very
little to consider for discussion with you (there are few typos and
nits, but they don't impact readability enough to raise at this time).

Could you please discuss with me or just make changes for the
following points.

Thanks a lot for this work.

Cheers,
Adrian

====

3.1.2

  The WG Secretary would typically act as the minute taker.

I agree that this is typical, but I fear it serves as a gate to new
secretaries. It is far from necessary that the secretary is the minute
taker so long as they are good at finding other stuckees.

---

In 3.2 you have

  ...be the Document Shepherd as per
  [6] for a given document

This is so very right. But why do you have it shown under

  o  Doing "Chair-like" work
     
Even RFC 4858 does not assign this role to a chair (it does note that it
is typically a chair and by default a chair, but that does not make it a
chair's role).

I think you might pull shepherding out into a separate bullet.

---

I should like you to add thee small sections

1. Consideration of More Than One Secretary for a Single WG

2. Considerations of Further Delegation by Secretaries

3. On Being Secretary of More Than One Working Group

---

I should like you to note that a WG secretary is typically identified on
the WG's charter page. Also that secretaries identified in that way are
automatically added to the tools email alias for
-chairs@tools.ietf.org

            The authors and the Document Shepherd of

                  IETF Working Groups' Secretaries
                  draft-secretaries-good-practices-04

    request that the document is published as a BCP.


(1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard,
Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? Why is
this the proper type of RFC? Is this type of RFC indicated in the
title page header?

    We request that the document is published as a BCP, since it
    updates an earlier BCP (RFC 2418).

(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

    This document describes the role of a secretary in an IETF WG.
    It does not lay down normative rules, but indicates possible
    tasks for the WG seretary.
    The document (section 2) also updates 6.2 of RFC 2418, since
    there have been a long time and new developments since the role
    of the working group secretary was first introduced in that
    document.

Working Group Summary

    This document has never been considered for working group
    adoption, since it cuts across all IETF working groups.
    The intention from the start has been to progress the document as
    an AD sponsored RFC.
   

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 question about implementations of this document largely
    depends on the exact meaning of "implementation".

    There are almost 20 IETF working groups that have secretaries,
    in som cases more than one.

    The document summarizes the experiences from  number of
    current working group secretaries .

Personnel

    Loa Andersson is the Document Shepherd.
    Adrian Farrel is the responsibel AD, sponsoring the document.


(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.

    The doucment shepherd first read the document when the -00
    version were posted and once more at version -02 (?).
    Since this is not a working group document and the question
    if I would be willing to Shepherd document did not come until
    version -04 the early review could be viewed as reviews from
    interested party.

    The Document Shepherd have reviewed version -04 in detail and
    comments have be sent to the authors.

    The Document Shepherd believe that version -05 is ready for
    publication.

(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or
    breadth of the reviews that have been performed?

    No - the document has been well discussed on the working group
    chairs mailing list.

    It has also been well discussed amongst most of the IETF WG
    secretaries, the discussion and new version were shared among
    the weceetaries after version -01.

(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 such reviews are necessary.

(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 such concerns.

(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.

      The Document Shepherd does not believe that any IPRs are
      possible against this document, it describes well established
      practices.

(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document?
If so, summarize any discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR
disclosures.

    There are no IPR disclosures against this document.

(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?

      It is the opinion of the Document Shepherd that there is a
      very solid consensus on this document.

(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 such threats!

(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.

    The nits tool points to the fact that RFC 2418 is referenced and
    suggest that the pre-RFC5378 boiler plate should be used. However this
    document does not include and text from RFC 2418 and the pre-RFC53778
    boiler plate is not needed.

(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.

    No such reviews necessary.

(13) Have all references within this document been identified as either normative or informative?

      Yes the refrences has been correctly split into normative and
      informative refrences.

(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 single normative reference is to an existing RFC.

(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.

    No downward references.

(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.

    The publiction of this document will not change the status of any
    other document.

(17) Describe the Document Shepherd's review of the IANA considerations
section, especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the
document.

      There are no requests for IANA actions in this document.

(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.

    There are no such new registries created.

(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.

      No such formal reviews required.