Subject: [Techspec] Editorial notes on draft-mankin-pub-req-08.txt

From: Paul Hoffman <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 24 May 2006 11:38:46 -0700

The terminology used for who signs off on post-IESG changes is 
inconsistent in the document. It is fine that this document doesn't 
specify who does the sign-off (that's an IETF decision), but the 
document should be consistent in who it says is doing it. The wording 
is "appropriate technical representatives" in 3.3, but "appropriate 
IETF party (often the document shepherd, but sometimes, by referral, 
the IESG)" in 3.7.

-----

In section 3.4:
    o  Req-REFVAL-1 - The IETF technical publisher should ensure that
       references within specifications are available.
That should probably be "...that all references..."; some of them are 
sure to be available. :-)

-----

In section 4.1:
    o  Req-TIMEFRAMES-2 - The consensus of the IETF community is that
       the time required for a pre-publication review should be under 10
       days. The actual performance targets and metrics are expected to
       be determined as part of the contract negotiation process.
The term "pre-publication review" is not defined anywhere in the 
document, and it probably should, given this consensus statement.

-----

Section 5 talks about "potential issues" for the IETF. Two bullet 
items do not match the earlier part of the document.

    o  Pre- vs Post-Approval Editing: If emphasis switches from post-
       approval editing to pre-approval editing, then IETF processes must
       be adapted to make use of this service.  The processes for post-
       approval editing can also be streamlined.
Section 3.1 makes a requirement that the emphasis must switch. So, 
"If" should probably be "When".

    o  Allocation of Permanent Stable Identifiers: IETF needs to clearly
       identify the naming/numbering schemes and classes of documents to
       which those names and numbers apply.  Furthermore, the
       responsibility for allocation of those names/numbers needs to be
       identified.
Section 3.8 says that it is the IETF publisher's responsibility, so 
the second sentence should probably be removed.

--Paul Hoffman, Director
--VPN Consortium

_______________________________________________
Techspec mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/techspec

edence: list
List-Id: "Discussion list for IETF Technical Specifications \(BOF at IETF64\)"
	<techspec.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/techspec>,
	<mailto:[email-masked]?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www1.ietf.org/pipermail/techspec>
List-Post: <mailto:[email-masked]>
List-Help: <mailto:[email-masked]?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/techspec>,
	<mailto:[email-masked]?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: [email-masked]

The terminology used for who signs off on post-IESG changes is 
inconsistent in the document. It is fine that this document doesn't 
specify who does the sign-off (that's an IETF decision), but the 
document should be consistent in who it says is doing it. The wording 
is "appropriate technical representatives" in 3.3, but "appropriate 
IETF party (often the document shepherd, but sometimes, by referral, 
the IESG)" in 3.7.

-----

In section 3.4:
    o  Req-REFVAL-1 - The IETF technical publisher should ensure that
       references within specifications are available.
That should probably be "...that all references..."; some of them are 
sure to be available. :-)

-----

In section 4.1:
    o  Req-TIMEFRAMES-2 - The consensus of the IETF community is that
       the time required for a pre-publication review should be under 10
       days. The actual performance targets and metrics are expected to
       be determined as part of the contract negotiation process.
The term "pre-publication review" is not defined anywhere in the 
document, and it probably should, given this consensus statement.

-----

Section 5 talks about "potential issues" for the IETF. Two bullet 
items do not match the earlier part of the document.

    o  Pre- vs Post-Approval Editing: If emphasis switches from post-
       approval editing to pre-approval editing, then IETF processes must
       be adapted to make use of this service.  The processes for post-
       approval editing can also be streamlined.
Section 3.1 makes a requirement that the emphasis must switch. So, 
"If" should probably be "When".

    o  Allocation of Permanent Stable Identifiers: IETF needs to clearly
       identify the naming/numbering schemes and classes of documents to
       which those names and numbers apply.  Furthermore, the
       responsibility for allocation of those names/numbers needs to be
       identified.
Section 3.8 says that it is the IETF publisher's responsibility, so 
the second sentence should probably be removed.

--Paul Hoffman, Director
--VPN Consortium

_______________________________________________
Techspec mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/techspec

---

From: "Stephen Hayes (TX/EUS)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 25 May 2006 19:48:35 -0500

Paul Hoffman wrote
>     o  Req-PREEDIT-1: The IETF technical publisher should perform an
>        editorial review of documents before WG last call and provide
>        feedback to the authors to improve quality of the 
> documents.  This
>        review should strive to maintain consistency in appearance with
>        previously published documents.
> The phrase "should perform" is quite different than "should support". 
> It seems that the consensus was that this should be done, so "should 
> perform" is correct.

I agree, the current wording is too strong.  Even if IETF decides to go down the pre-approval review route, it is not clear what documents you would use it on.  It is certainly a stretch to assume all WG docs would be pre-approved.  It is also unclear that it is only WG docs that could have pre-approval review.  I will change the wording to indicate that is it something the technical publisher should do when requested by appropriate technical representatives.