Subject: [proto-team] Fwd: Question for draft shepherd's questionnaire?

From: Lars Eggert <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 3 Jul 2007 11:18:23 +0300

FYI, there was a suggestion to add an item to the questionnaire. What  
do folks think?

How are we maintaining the questionnaire? Should I start a rfc4858bis  
document?

Begin forwarded message:
> From: "ext Stig Venaas" <[email-masked]>
> Date: July 1, 2007 11:37:43 GMT+03:00
> To: Lars Eggert <[email-masked]>
> Cc: ext Ralph Droms <[email-masked]>, Jari Arkko  
> <[email-masked]>
> Subject: Re: Question for draft shepherd's questionnaire?
>
> Lars Eggert wrote:
>> On 2007-6-29, at 14:51, ext Ralph Droms wrote:
>>> "Does this Internet Draft propose any extensions to the operation  
>>> or capabilities of any other protocols such as IPv6 (extension  
>>> headers), ICMP, Diameter, RADIUS, DNS or DHCP?  Does this  
>>> Internet Draft require that IANA assign any protocol numbers that  
>>> require review by another individual or review body outside the  
>>> submitting working group?"
>> We might consider adding a sentence to (1.c) on this issue. Maybe:
>>    (1.c)  Does the Document Shepherd have concerns that the document
>>           needs more review from a particular or broader perspective,
>>           e.g., security, operational complexity, someone familiar  
>> with
>>           AAA, internationalization, or XML?
>> NEW:
>>           If the document extends or makes requirements on a protocol
>>           that originated in another WG or area, has that group
>>           reviewed that the document conforms to any established  
>> protocol
>>           maintenance process and that it does not conflict with
>>           chartered or planned work?
>
> Adding this would be great,
>
> Stig
_______________________________________________
proto-team mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/proto-team

---

From: Lars Eggert <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2007 16:40:32 +0300

On 2007-7-3, at 11:18, ext Lars Eggert wrote:
> FYI, there was a suggestion to add an item to the questionnaire.  
> What do folks think?

Any opinions on this addition?

> How are we maintaining the questionnaire? Should I start a  
> rfc4858bis document?

The questionnaire is currently in the RFC and on http:// 
tools.ietf.org/group/proto/home/ as

	http://www.ietf.org/IESG/content/Doc-Writeup.html
and
	http://www.ietf.org/IESG/content/Indiv-Doc-Writeup.html

I don't know where the second version comes from - the sponsoring  
guidelines?

I also don't know who maintains these templates and how additions  
such as the above would be made. Do we edit those web pages? Do we  
issue an RFC4858bis? Do we turn the templates into an ION?

Lars

>>>> "Does this Internet Draft propose any extensions to the  
>>>> operation or capabilities of any other protocols such as IPv6  
>>>> (extension headers), ICMP, Diameter, RADIUS, DNS or DHCP?  Does  
>>>> this Internet Draft require that IANA assign any protocol  
>>>> numbers that require review by another individual or review body  
>>>> outside the submitting working group?"
>>>           e.g., security, operational complexity, someone  
>>> familiar with

---

From: Lars Eggert <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2007 16:53:34 +0300

On 2007-7-11, at 16:51, ext Jari Arkko wrote:
> My take would be to edit the web pages. Do this for a year or so,
> and then publish a bis if you've collected enough change.

Works for me. Now I just need to know how to get permission to edit  
the pages...

> The second version comes from the sponsoring guidelines ION.

Lars

---

From: Henrik Levkowetz <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2007 16:51:05 +0200

> Any opinions on this addition?

Umm - not a lot.  The addition seems reasonable by itself, but at
the same time I'm wary of the questionnaire becoming too long.
At some point we should probably require that any suggestion of
an addition is accompanied by a suggestion of what should be removed.

<off-topic>I wish the legislative bodies of countries would have
a similar rule -- it's unreasonable to have a body of active laws
which you expect people to follow which is so large that nobody
can grasp it.</off-topic>

> I don't know where the second version comes from - the sponsoring  

I think yes, and I think Jari created the second one.

> issue an RFC4858bis? Do we turn the templates into an ION?

An ION (or two?) seems like a good idea.

	Henrik

>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>

---

From: "Mankin, Allison J" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2007 11:33:39 -0400

Hi,

I think we should not add to the questionnaire without a fairly high
bar.  But I also think that we should put out a quick redo of 4858 that
says the questionnaire will be found as an ION, now that there's a
pretty easy to find the ION repository.

I have more to say on the content of Ralph's suggestion, but I've been
writing something and deadlining on it...Gack.

Allison
-----Original Message-----
From: Henrik Levkowetz [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Wednesday, July 11, 2007 10:51 AM
To: Lars Eggert
Cc: Jari Arkko; Russ Housley; [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [proto-team] Fwd: Question for draft shepherd's
questionnaire?

> Any opinions on this addition?

Umm - not a lot.  The addition seems reasonable by itself, but at the
same time I'm wary of the questionnaire becoming too long.
At some point we should probably require that any suggestion of an
addition is accompanied by a suggestion of what should be removed.

<off-topic>I wish the legislative bodies of countries would have a
similar rule -- it's unreasonable to have a body of active laws which
you expect people to follow which is so large that nobody can grasp
it.</off-topic>

> I also don't know who maintains these templates and how additions such

> as the above would be made. Do we edit those web pages? Do we issue an

> RFC4858bis? Do we turn the templates into an ION?

	Henrik

>>>>> headers), ICMP, Diameter, RADIUS, DNS or DHCP?  Does this Internet

>>>>> Draft require that IANA assign any protocol numbers that require 
>>>>> review by another individual or review body outside the submitting

>>>>> working group?"

---

From: Lars Eggert <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2007 10:46:50 +0300

> pretty easy to find the ION repository.

OK, that works for me. I'll start putting together a revised ID and  
an initial ION and will post it to the list later.

> writing something and deadlining on it...Gack.

OK.

Lars

---

From: Lars Eggert <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2007 16:09:09 +0300

> an initial ION and will post it to the list later.

Attached are a first cut at rfc4858bis together with a diff against  
RFC4858 as well as a draft of the ION that would contain the template  
for the shepherd write-up.

Comments?

Lars

---

From: Lars Eggert <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2007 15:40:26 +0300

On 2007-7-16, at 15:32, ext Jari Arkko wrote:
> FYI -- wearing my document shepherd hat: I like the
> web pages in http://www.ietf.org/IESG/content/
> because it makes copying & pasting very easy.
> We already have the individual submission template
> there too, even if for that we also have an ION.

In other words: don't put the template into an ION, use the web page?

Works for me.

(But then I'd like to be able to modify that web page directly,  
without needing to corner someone that has write access there.)

Lars

---

From: "Mankin, Allison J" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2007 15:52:28 -0400

Jari,

Where do the WG Chairs find the information?  We need both the Ads and
the Chairs to find the questionnaire, both easily.  The Chairs have
fewer educational and reinforcement mechanisms than the Ads - the Ads
have their calls, their IESG Chair, the secretariat, lots of ways to be
helped in finding a consistent copy of the questionnaire, and they
aren't even the ones who have to fill it out!

As a further consideration, the WG Chairs (and the IETF participants)
need the questionnaire to stay consistent, because it needs to be
applied to all the documents the same way.  If the questionnaire is
maintained in several places, it will become inconsistent (when I was AD
we had experience with several resources like this).  

So, I believe it would be best for the questionnaire to have the same
availability and maintenance situation as id-nits - that is now an ION
and I believe that Ads, Chairs and IETFers all know how to find it and
work with it.

What do you think of my considerations about this?

Allison

-----Original Message-----
From: Jari Arkko [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Monday, July 16, 2007 9:11 AM
To: Lars Eggert
Cc: Mankin, Allison J; Henrik Levkowetz; Russ Housley;
[email-masked]

> In other words: don't put the template into an ION, use the web page?

Yes. Or at least not only in an ION...

> without needing to corner someone that has write access there.)

The approvals and modification process is a separate issue from how this
looks to the end user. If you want, we could still require that the web
page is not updated unless the ION or the RFC is. Or we could update the
web page as is needed, by some designated responsible person.

The IESG web page access should be available to whoever AD wants to
figure out how to do it... I have not yet. I suspect this needs
subversion usage, and I have not used it before.

Jari

---

From: Lars Eggert <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2007 09:09:46 +0300

On 2007-7-18, at 0:10, ext Russ Housley wrote:
> I thought we changed the RFC right before approval to include a  
> URL.  Did that not happen?

We didn't have a URL then. The document says:

    The initial template for the Document Shepherd Write-Up is included
    below, but changes are expected over time.  The latest version of
    this template is available from the IESG section of the IETF web
    site.

Lars