A new version of the technical publisher requirements is available:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-mankin-pub-req-10.txt
This version hopefully resolves a few belated last call comments as well as the
IESG discusses.
Stephen Hayes
The changes from version 09->10 are:
1. Changes to section 1 (intro):
- "ISD" replaced by "otherwise"
- It was indicated this document will be used in the preparation
of future contracts
- Clarified that the current technical publisher is the RFC Editor
2. Changes to section 2 (scope)
- Genericized "RFC streams" to "publication streams"
- Added the IETF secretariat and draft publication, status
tracking into the lifecycle diagram
3. Clarified in section 3.1 that the publisher should be capable of doing
pre-approval review, not that it is currently expected to. Also removed the
bias of pre -vs- post-approval editing in sections 3.1 and 3.3.
4. Clarified in section 3.2 that the publisher is not expected to extend the
lifetime of a draft that is in the publication process.
5. Clarified in section 3.4 that the publisher should only hold up publication
for normative references.
6. Clarified in section 3.5 that the publisher should only do a syntactic
review of formal language sections.
7. Clarified in section 3.7 (Req-POSTCORR-2) that the responsible party is
designated by the IESG and is sometimes referred to as the document shepherd
who is currently an AD.
8. Cleaned up in section 3.9 the formats currently accepted by and produced by
the RFC editor (text has been reviewed by the RFC editor). Also clarified that
it is not the publisher's responsibility to edit supplemental files.
9. Added to sections 3.11 and 3.16 that it was desirable that the interface to
the status info and the index be documented to facilitate tool development
(indicated as desirable so not a hard requirement).
10. In section 3.13, indicated that the IAB can also put a document on hold in
case of appeal.
11. Clarified in section 3.15 that the process for reviewing, updating, and
approving errata (for IETF documents) is a process issue to be defined by the
IETF.
12. In section 3.16, removed requirement Req-INDEX-7 (to purge a document).
Performing such an action would be due to a legal mandate. The publisher is
expected to comply with legal edicts as much as possible in any case and it is
the contract that should enforce this behaviour (a requirement to comply with
applicable laws seems unnecessary). Such a hypothetical mandate need not,
however, drive solutions for archiving documents.
13. More editorial cleanup.
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf