Subject: Re: [proto-team] Re: Submission of update to document in IESG Eval

From: Allison Mankin <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2006 09:37:09 -0700

Brian,

The document mainly differs from -07 in adding Sections 4 and 5,
about shepherding the IANA processing and shepherding the
document in the RFC Editor.

Note: I did not include errata shepherding  because this
 seems not to be clear yet - errata can be found forever -
 I hesitated to assume the Document Shepherd could still be
 attached at arbitrary times after RFC publication.  Someone
 is thinking about errata verification since the WGs know
 best, and this sort of question?  We might want to add
 an explicit disclaimer about errata shepherding as a
 Note to the RFC Editor text.  

I see now that I did not add mentions of the new sections
in the paragraph that starts "The remainder of this document 
is organised as follows" - so if you don't want one more revision,
I may ask to give you that as a Note to the RFC Editor.

Other mods:

 - Fixed the number references to questions in the Document Shepherd
   Write-Up

A few updates to ensure a bit more specificity of text which is
already there.  In a WG document, I would not be happy with the
editor, but I think this was ok/constructive (of course :).
See diffs when we get to the tools.ietf.org page.

I added to the Document Shepherd Write-Up questions about
IANA a question about whether there's been action on
any designated Expert.

Under the Document Announcement Write-Up in Section 1, I had
a formatting problem when I tried to simply add a line before
the listing of the Document Shepherd and the Responsible
Area Director, so I resorted to giving that its own heading,
"Personnel".  

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