I don't think it's outdated at all. It was a very necessary document at the time, because many WGs were suffering from process delays when WG chairs and authors were unclear on the process. My memory is that Alison Mankin in particular pushed for a more systematic approach, reagardless of whether it is a WG Chair or another designated person that acts as shepherd. These days, this approach is built into WG Chair culture and is supported by the tracker.
Having a non-WG-Chair as shepherd is particularly useful if one, or even both, chairs are authors of the draft in question. In that case it avoids a tricky conflict of interest. In other cases it simply spreads the workload, if a WG has many documents reaching maturity at the same time.
Regards
Brian Carpenter
On 14-Feb-22 11:01, Donald Eastlake wrote:
On Sun, Feb 13, 2022 at 4:03 PM Salz, Rich
<rsalz=40akamai.com@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
That RFC, which I got from reading the Tao, seems very updated. In my experience, the WG chair usually does the writeup and the responsible AD handles the followups. Is that generally true?
I think you mean "outdated", not "updated". The Shepherd normally does
the write-up, it is just that it is common for a Chair to be appointed
Shepherd. Follow-ups are a complex multi-party process. If the
Authors are on the ball, there may be nothing for the Shepherd to do
that the authors are not already following up.
Thanks,
Donald
===============================
Donald E. Eastlake 3rd +1-508-333-2270 (cell)
2386 Panoramic Circle, Apopka, FL 32703 USA
d3e3e3@xxxxxxxxx
