[yam] Request for comments: Working Group procedure

[S Moonesamy <sm+ietf at elandsys.com>]

This is a follow-up on the message [1] I posted about 
draft-ietf-yam-rfc1652bis-pre-evaluation-00 on October 15th.

All the IESG comments except for Lisa's point (see my previous 
message) have been addressed.  The latter is relevant to the 
procedure followed by the Working Group and future pre-evaluation I-Ds.

Now that I have more information about the procedure to be followed 
by the Working Group, I'll elaborate on it.  A pre-evaluation 
Internet-Draft is submitted and the WG is asked to comment on 
it.  There is a WGLC for the pre-evaluation I-D.  I write a 
deployment report for the document being revised.  If there is WG 
consensus about the pre-evaluation I-D, the WG Chairs request an IESG 
Evaluation of it.  The way the evaluation is handled ("Management 
Item") is an internal IESG matter.  The IESG issues a statement about 
the specification being evaluated.  The WG decides what to do about 
any issues that may arise.  There is another WGLC if there is an 
updated document.  The WG submits the document for an IETF-wide 
Last-Call and the normal process is followed.

Please review what Lisa said [1] about security considerations and 
post your comments to this mailing list.

Regards,
S. Moonesamy
YAM WG Secretary

1. http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/yam/current/msg00130.html