Hi Barry, There is a disconnect between what the Last Call is asking and what you really seem to be asking as a feedback. The Last Call question is: > The IESG has received a request from an individual submitter to consider the following document: - 'Document Shepherding Throughout a Document's Lifecycle' <draft-leiba-extended-doc-shepherd-00.txt> as Informational RFC > The author is documenting his own opinion, and he is presenting that opinion to the community for consideration. The author is not proposing any formal change, but he is interested in community comments. Since this is the authors opinions, changes to the document based on received comments be at the author's discretion. As a result, the finished document will not claim to reflect IETF community consensus. > The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the ietf@xxxxxxxx mailing lists by 2012-10-23. Exceptionally, comments may be sent to iesg@xxxxxxxx instead. In either case, please retain the beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting. The document Abstract says: > It seems reasonable and helpful to begin shepherding when there's a call for adoption as a working group document, and this document gives one Area Director's view of how that extended shepherding function might work, and what tasks might be involved throughout the document's lifecycle. I understand that you are interested in the community comments. However the Last Call speaks also about an action - publication of this document as an Informational RFC. This does not seem to be in synch with 'changes to the document based on comments be at the authors discussion'. So what are we really debating? - the early shepherding proposal contained in the document? , or - the action to approve this I-D as an Informational RFC as part of the IETF stream despite the fact that its content may not reflect the IETF consensus? I do not see any procedure breach in the way this Last Call is submitted, but there is something that is unusual in the IETF practice. An AD-sponsored document can be submitted to the IESG approval without the need of community consensus expressed in IETF Last Call. However, in many cases the sheperding AD prefers to consult with the community and sends the document to Last Call. It is assumed or at least understood that the comments are being considered and if the community rejects the document or part of it it will not be published at the author's discretion'. This document seems to be different. Regards, Dan > -----Original Message----- > From: ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx [mailto:ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of > Barry Leiba > Sent: Tuesday, September 25, 2012 11:38 PM > To: adrian@xxxxxxxxxxxx > Cc: ietf@xxxxxxxx > Subject: Re: FW: Last Call: <draft-leiba-extended-doc-shepherd- > 00.txt>(Document Shepherding Throughout a Document's Lifecycle) > toInformational RFC > > > I don't understand the process for this document. > > > > I read Russ's words, but I don't glean the meaning :-( > > Think of it like the documents where we republish something from another > organization: > > http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc6449/ > > ....or publish something that describes how a product from a particular > company works: > > http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc6281/ > http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-claise-export-application-info- > in-ipfix/ > > > Why does that feel like Independent Stream to me? > > Russ thought that process-related stuff wasn't suitable for the > Independent Stream. > > Barry