Changes between Version 10 and Version 11 of DraftShepherdWriteupWgAlternate

Timestamp:

14/09/12 17:52:53 (11 years ago)

Author:

barryleiba@…

Comment:

--

DraftShepherdWriteupWgAlternate

@@ -24 +24 @@
   Who is the document shepherd? Who is the responsible Area Director?
 
-  Explain briefly what the intent of the document is, and why the working group has chosen the requested publication type (BCP, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic).  Explain anything notable about the working group's discussion of the document, particularly citing significant points of difficulty or controversy, and explaining how they were resolved.  Outline implementation plans or cite any current implementations.
+  Explain briefly what the intent of the document is (the document's abstract is usually good for this), and why the working group has chosen the requested publication type (BCP, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic).  
 
 === 2. Review and Consensus ===
 
-  Explain how actively the document was reviewed and discussed by the working group and, in a general sense, how much of the interested community is behind the document.  Say how broad or narrow the reviews have been, what external reviews have been done (directorates, review teams, expert reviews, reviews from other SDOs), and whether there are specific communities, IETF areas, or individuals that should further review the document.  Note specific portions that might need review by subject-matter experts, and say which ones have been requested.  Consider, for example, reviews from the perspective of security, operational complexity, AAA, DNS, DHCP, XML, or internationalization.  Describe any specific concerns or issues that the document shepherd has with this document or with the working group process related to it that the responsible Area Director and/or the IESG should be aware of.
+  Explain how actively the document was reviewed and discussed, by the working group and external parties, and explain in a general sense how much of the interested community is behind the document.  Explain anything notable about the discussion of the document.
+
+  (In this section, tell the IESG whether there was review by a small number of interested folks within the working group, a lively long term discussion by large numbers of working group participants, and whether there was quick and broad consensus or several issues for which the consensus was "rough".  Cite significant points of difficulty or controversy, and explain how they were resolved.  Mention any reviews done by directorates, review teams, expert reviews, reviews from other SDOs, and whether there you think other specific groups should do further review. Consider, for example, reviews from the perspective of security, operational complexity, AAA, DNS, DHCP, XML, or internationalization. You should also describe any specific concerns or issues that the document shepherd has with this document or with the working group process related to it that the responsible Area Director and/or the IESG should be aware of.  Note known implementation plans or any current implementations.)
 
 === 3. Intellectual Property ===
@@ -36 +38 @@
 === 4. Other Points ===
 
-  Note any downward references (see RFC 3967), to support the responsible Area Director in the Last Call process.
+  Note any downward references (see RFC 3967) and whether they appear in the DOWNREF Registry (http://trac.tools.ietf.org/group/iesg/trac/wiki/DownrefRegistry), as these need to be announced during Last Call.
 
   Check the IANA Considerations for clarity and against the checklist below.  Note any new registries that are created by this document and briefly describe the working group's discussion that led to the selection of the allocation procedures and policies (see RFC 5226) that were selected for them.  If any new registries require expert review for future allocations, provide any public guidance that the IESG would find useful in selecting the designated experts (private comments may be sent to the Area Director separately).