[townsley - Mon Jan 30 19:54:16 2006]:
Secretary:
At the interim meeting today, there was consensus to ask the secretary
to operate on PROTO questionairres when receiving publication requests.
Allison, Barbara, and I discussed this a bit offline and agreed on the
following:
The secretary will take a proto questionairre included with the wg chair
publication request and paste it into a comment in the tracker. Please
title the comment with something like "PROTO QUESTIONAIRRE" so that it
is clear what follows within the comment.
Allison will take on this issue as a feature request for when she works
on wg chair access to the tracker. Specifically, that the publication
request part of the tool have a specific way to handle including the
proto questionairre, and potentially enforcing it for movement to the
publication requested state.
The IESG should send an email to the wg-chairs list, strongy encouraging
proto questionairres to be included with publication request emails to
the secretary, and noting that the secretary will be doing the cutting
and pasting if the proto questionairre is present.
For reference, this is what a proto questionairre looks like (this was
asked for by Barbara):
1) Have the chairs personally reviewed this version of the ID and do
they believe this ID is sufficiently baked to forward to the IESG
for publication?
Yes
2) Has the document had adequate review from both key WG members and
key non-WG members? Do you have any concerns about the depth or
breadth of the reviews that have been performed?
Yes. In addition rteview in PWE3 WG the draft includes an MPLS
chair as co-author.
3) Do you have concerns that the document needs more review from a
particular (broader) perspective (e.g., security, operational
complexity, someone familiar with AAA, etc.)?
No
4) Do you have any specific concerns/issues with this document that
you believe the ADs and/or IESG should be aware of? For example,
perhaps you are uncomfortable with certain parts of the document,
or whether there really is a need for it, etc., but at the same
time these issues have been discussed in the WG and the WG has
indicated it wishes to advance the document anyway.
There is the issue of the IETF at some time in the future wishing
to reclaim IP version 0 and 1. This is unlikely. Will a note
need to be included in the IP versions registry?
5) How solid is the WG consensus behind this document? Does it
represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others
being silent, or does the WG as a whole understand and agree with
it?
There is strong consensus for this design. There is the issue of
whether there needs to be any L2TPv3 text included, but the opinion
of the WG is that this should be a seperate document.
6) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme
discontent? If so, please summarize what are they upset about.
No
7) Have the chairs verified that the document adheres to _all_ of the
ID nits? (see http://www.ietf.org/ID-nits.html).
Yes
8) Does the document a) split references into normative/informative,
and b) are there normative references to IDs, where the IDs are not
also ready for advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state?
(Note: the RFC editor will not publish an RFC with normative
references to IDs, it will delay publication until all such IDs are
also ready for publication as RFCs.)
a) yes
b) No
9) For Standards Track and BCP documents, the IESG approval
announcement includes a writeup section with the following
sections: