On Oct 9, 2014, at 10:12 AM 10/9/14, Spencer Dawkins at IETF
<spencerdawkins(_dot_)ietf(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com> wrote:
On Thu, Oct 9, 2014 at 2:57 AM, Adrian Farrel
<adrian(_at_)olddog(_dot_)co(_dot_)uk> wrote:
Yeah, I've often wondered about that text...
(3) Briefly describe the review of this document that was performed by
the Document Shepherd. If this version of the document is not ready
for publication, please explain why the document is being forwarded to
the IESG.
I've always assumed it means "If you are forwarding this to the IESG without
it
being ready for publication, you have a lot of explaining to do."
Perhaps it means "The WG thinks the doc is ready for publication, but I (as doc
shpeherd) have the following reservations." ???
...which, of course, begs the question of why that doc shepherd was selected.
- Ralph
I'll confess to being equally mystified.
It made sense to me to request publication for a working group document that
is being - maybe not ¨abandoned¨, but we've recently seen publication
requested for a discussion draft that made people think, is no longer being
maintained, and the working group wants to preserve it in its current state -
like that.
And if it was a working group document that doesn't match what the working
group now thinks, it would make sense to publish it in the Independent
stream, but I guess it could make sense to publish some of these as an ¨IETF
consensus = no¨ RFC.
But I'm still not getting ¨please publish this, but it's not ready for
publication¨!
Spencer