ietf
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Tracking resolution of DISCUSSes

2007-01-08 12:13:57
Adrian Farrel wrote:

3. Are notes to the RFC Editor inserted in the I-D tracker?
   I certainly haven't seen them there in the past.

It's at the end of the "IESG evaluation record".  There you'll
find a draft of the approval announcement, and that contains
Note to RFC editor + IESG note + IANA note (if any), example:

https://datatracker.ietf.org/public/pidtracker.cgi?command=print_ballot&ballot_id=2253

   In any case, we would still like to see why this note to
   the RFC Editor is suitable to address the DISCUSS.

If the discussion triggered by a DISCUSS in in private mails
or on the WG list you won't find it in the tracker.  But you
see *_when_* it was cleared, so if there's a new I-D between
the DISCUSS and the updated ballot it's probably related.

BTW, the new "last call" boilerplate is better, thanks to
(wild guess) Lisa.  Among other improvements it has a link
to the draft tracker.

But the WG Chair is the PROTO shepherd and does have
responsibility.

The PROTO shepherd has this responsiblity and may be the
WG chair?

Yes, they're supposed to watch the tracker and report issues
to the WG and/or authors.  Of course the responsible AD is
free to shepherd the procedure directly.  The shepherds also
check that RFC editor + authors don't introduce substantial
modifications in AUTH48 (the last weak point in this maze -
but IMO the most critical point is the "Note to RFC editor",
apparently we're supposed to check this step and to cry foul
a.s.a.p., ideally before the approval is published).

How about allowing PROTO shepherds to post to the I-D tracker?

Can't they ?  At least the questionnaire (modulo 1F) is posted.

Frank



_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf