Re: Last Call: 'Requirements for IETF Draft Submission Toolset' to Informational RFC

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



The IESG Secretary announced, via the IETF-Announce list:
> The IESG has received a request from the TOOLS team to consider the 
> following document:
> 
> - 'Requirements for IETF Draft Submission Toolset '
>    <draft-ietf-tools-draft-submission-07.txt> as an Informational RFC
> 
> The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
> final comments on this action.  Please send any comments to the
> iesg@xxxxxxxx or ietf@xxxxxxxx mailing lists by 2005-03-28.

I've suggested (via Reply-To) discussion on the IETF list.

> Note that this is an unusual document, in that it doesn't specify a protocol
> or a procedure; instead, it specifies requirements for a tool to make IETF
> procedures run more smoothly. The process that produced this (the Tools team)
> is itself an experiment; in addition to commenting on the content of the
> document, comments on whether or not it makes sense to publish this as
> an RFC, and comments on the process that produced it, are appropriate.
> 
> The file can be obtained via
> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-tools-draft-submission-07.txt

Comment on the substance and proposed procedure:

It seems odd that there is no provision for upload of nroff source
(RFC 2223) mentioned in sections 7 and 8 of the draft.

The draft seems heavily oriented toward use of XML, which (to
paraphrase the draft) some IETFers find unusable for preparation of
drafts and RFCs.

Editorial comment:

The draft could benefit from a grammar/style check; in particular,
insertion of instances of the definite article "the" in appropriate
places would improve readability.

Comment on publication:

Publication as an Experimental RFC seems appropriate.  Alternatively,
entering the Standards Track at Proposed might also be suitable. If
it is expected that there will be multiple implementations, then
Standards Track would be preferable.  Conversely, if it is expected
that the Secretariat will have a single implementation, starting as
Experimental, then submitting a future version as BCP would probably
be more suitable.

_______________________________________________

Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Fedora Users]