Skip to main content

Shepherd writeup
draft-secretaries-good-practices

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.
Back