Subject: RE: [proto-team] draft-ietf-proto-wgchair-tracker-ext

From: "Mankin, Allison J" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 3 Jan 2007 16:32:48 -0500

Henrik,

Very very nice.

I find one paragraph is hard to read.  Suggested clarification:

OLD:
   Similarly to the automatic transition described below in Section 4,
   the WG annotation tag "Doc Shepherd Followup" should be automatically
   assigned by the tracker when a document is updated when it is in the
   WG state "In WG Last Call" with the annotation tag "Revised ID
   Needed" (which the shepherd may or may not choose to use in his/her
   WG) (R-023).

NEW:
   When a document is in the WG state "In WG Last Call" with the
annotation "Revised ID Needed", the WG annotation tag "Doc Shepherd
Followup" should be automatically assigned by the tracker when the
document is updated.  This is analogous to the automatic transition
described below in Section 4.  Not all shepherds will choose to annotate
documents in WG Last Call this way.

Thanks so much for carrying this on!!

Happy New Year!

Allison

-----Original Message-----
From: Henrik Levkowetz [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Wednesday, January 03, 2007 4:08 PM
To: Brian E Carpenter; Margaret Wasserman
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: [proto-team] draft-ietf-proto-wgchair-tracker-ext

Hi,

  Here's an updated version of the wgchair tracker document.  I've read
through it again, to see if there are things I'd like to tweak, but
there are virtually no changes compared with the -01.g version I sent
out between Montreal and San Diego. I've added a "Not a WG document"
state to the WG states to make the set complete, and the date and
boilerplate has been updated.

If there are no comments on this, I plan to submit it tomorrow (in about
24 hours, that is).

Regards,

	Henrik

_______________________________________________
proto-team mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/proto-team

---

From: Henrik Levkowetz <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 03 Jan 2007 23:52:59 +0100

Hi Allison,

> documents in WG Last Call this way.

Agreed, this is an easier read.  I'll use your text, but skip the last
sentence which seems rather superfluous in both the old and new version.

Thanks,

	Henrik

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 04 Jan 2007 09:24:25 +0100

Great. And then you need to decide whether it's
ready for including in a spec for Neustar or whether
it needs further time for comment.

    Brian

---

From: Henrik Levkowetz <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 04 Jan 2007 10:39:22 +0100

Hi Brian,

> it needs further time for comment.

Right.  There were a lot of comments from the WG chairs on
the previous version; I feel that it would be prudent to
announce it there again, explain the changes, and ask for
further comments.  If there are any minor ones, I should be
able to do a fast turn-around for a new version -- I don't
expect any major ones which require re-thinking of the approach
this time.

	Henrik

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 04 Jan 2007 10:54:38 +0100

Agreed