Hi Barry,
There is a disconnect between what the Last Call is asking and what you
really seem to be asking as a feedback.
The Last Call question is:
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.
The document Abstract says:
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.
I understand that you are interested in the community comments. However
the Last Call speaks also about an action - publication of this document
as an Informational RFC. This does not seem to be in synch with 'changes
to the document based on comments be at the authors discussion'.
So what are we really debating?
- the early shepherding proposal contained in the document? , or
- the action to approve this I-D as an Informational RFC as part of the
IETF stream despite the fact that its content may not reflect the IETF
consensus?
I do not see any procedure breach in the way this Last Call is
submitted, but there is something that is unusual in the IETF practice.
An AD-sponsored document can be submitted to the IESG approval without
the need of community consensus expressed in IETF Last Call. However, in
many cases the sheperding AD prefers to consult with the community and
sends the document to Last Call. It is assumed or at least understood
that the comments are being considered and if the community rejects the
document or part of it it will not be published at the author's
discretion'. This document seems to be different.
Regards,
Dan
-----Original Message-----
From: ietf-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
[mailto:ietf-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org] On Behalf
Of
Barry Leiba
Sent: Tuesday, September 25, 2012 11:38 PM
To: adrian(_at_)olddog(_dot_)co(_dot_)uk
Cc: ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
Subject: Re: FW: Last Call: <draft-leiba-extended-doc-shepherd-
00.txt>(Document Shepherding Throughout a Document's Lifecycle)
toInformational RFC
I don't understand the process for this document.
I read Russ's words, but I don't glean the meaning :-(
Think of it like the documents where we republish something from
another
organization:
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc6449/
....or publish something that describes how a product from a
particular
company works:
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc6281/
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-claise-export-application-info-
in-ipfix/
Why does that feel like Independent Stream to me?
Russ thought that process-related stuff wasn't suitable for the
Independent Stream.
Barry