Dated: 26/09/2012 By: Abdussalam
Baryun (AB)
This is a reply to below request call.
Reviewer Related Comment: The General Area Individual input
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Overall the reviewer disagrees to accept the document only after
modifications mentioned below and with referencing discussions/surveys
if available. I will name the I-D as a reflection report, which is
helpful for organisations' progress. Comments below:
1) the Abstract and Title of the document should represent the real
purpose of the document, it is not understood from them that the
document is an opinion, or point of view, or two points of view, or is
this document argumental. Informational track document related to such
subject SHOULD include references to history and practices as the
author witnesses while his experience, as a reflection report.
2) How can an individual submitter make input to produce RFC relating
to the administrative work of IETF, this will be without community
agreement or consultant.
3) IF there was no consultant from community of the Internet by the
author, and the I-D concerns their process, THEN the I-D SHOULD
mention that clearly. IF there was a questionnair or survey done by
the author, THEN he/she should include in the I-D. IF no such survey
done, nor questionnair distributed to get feedback, THEN it SHUOLD be
stated that there was no survey, in addition to the above.
4) IF the document represents the authors views THEN the Absract of
the I-D SHOULD state clearly, that : "this document is only the
opinion of the author(s) and not the Community. IF not mentioned THEN
the author must show prove of such claims/understandings.
Best regards
AB
End of Reply
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
On 9/25/12, The IESG <iesg-secretary(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org> wrote:
The IESG has received a request from an individual submitter to consider
the following document:
- 'Document Shepherding Throughout a Document's Lifecycle'
<draft-leiba-extended-doc-shepherd-00.txt> as Informational RFC
The author is documenting his own opinion, and he is presenting that
opinion to the community for consideration. The author is not
proposing any formal change, but he is interested in community
comments. Since this is the authors opinions, changes to the document
based on received comments be at the author's discretion. As a
result, the finished document will not claim to reflect IETF community
consensus.
The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the
ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org mailing lists by 2012-10-23. Exceptionally, comments
may be
sent to iesg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org instead. In either case, please retain the
beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting.
Abstract
RFC 4858 talks about "Document Shepherding from Working Group Last
Call to Publication". There's a significant part of a document's
life that happens before working group last call, starting, really,
at the time a working group begins discussing a version of the idea
that's been posted as an individual draft. It seems reasonable and
helpful to begin shepherding when there's a call for adoption as a
working group document, and this document gives one Area Director's
view of how that extended shepherding function might work, and what
tasks might be involved throughout the document's lifecycle.
The file can be obtained via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-leiba-extended-doc-shepherd/
IESG discussion can be tracked via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-leiba-extended-doc-shepherd/ballot/
No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D.