Subject: Re: Last Call: 'Document Shepherding From Working Group Last Call to IESG Approval' to Informational RFC

From: Frank Ellermann <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2006 02:35:12 +0200

The IESG wrote:

> Informational RFC

Why not BCP ?  Some nits (that could be "DEnglish" on my side):

In 3a s/behalf/behalf of/ and  s/able support/able to support/.
In 3d s/a a consistent/a consistent/

In 3h (b), what's the point of an appeal against a DISCUSS ?
Doesn't it turn into ABSTAIN automatically after some time ?

 From sections 1 and 4 I don't see who initiates this procedure,
either the Chairs or the responsible AD.  Apparently the Chairs
can decide who's document shepherd, but the AD isn't forced to
use the procedure and can do the shepherding directly.

Why can't the AD simply decide what it's going to be, free to
change his or her mind at any time in the lifetime of the WG ?

That would also clear a potential deadloop at 2h, returning to
2a "forever".  The procedure apparently doesn't work in this
case.  And at that stage an explicit right to appeal might be
useful, or how's the WG supposed to get beyond the blocking AD
at this point (2h => 2a loop) ?

In (3e) and (3f) the document shepherd checks all last minute
changes with the authors (and if possible + necessary the WG).
Please add a note to (3e) that this includes any "notes to the
RFC editor" added in step (3b).

Bye, Frank

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