On 10/9/14 7:17 AM, Ralph Droms wrote: > > On Oct 9, 2014, at 10:12 AM 10/9/14, Spencer Dawkins at IETF <spencerdawkins.ietf@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> >> >> On Thu, Oct 9, 2014 at 2:57 AM, Adrian Farrel <adrian@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> Yeah, I've often wondered about that text... >> >>> (3) Briefly describe the review of this document that was performed by >>> the Document Shepherd. If this version of the document is not ready >>> for publication, please explain why the document is being forwarded to >>> the IESG. >> >> I've always assumed it means "If you are forwarding this to the IESG without it >> being ready for publication, you have a lot of explaining to do." > > Perhaps it means "The WG thinks the doc is ready for publication, but I (as doc shpeherd) have the following reservations." ??? > > ...which, of course, begs the question of why that doc shepherd was selected. their candor? > > - Ralph > >> >> >> I'll confess to being equally mystified. >> >> It made sense to me to request publication for a working group document that is being - maybe not ¨abandoned¨, but we've recently seen publication requested for a discussion draft that made people think, is no longer being maintained, and the working group wants to preserve it in its current state - like that. >> >> And if it was a working group document that doesn't match what the working group now thinks, it would make sense to publish it in the Independent stream, but I guess it could make sense to publish some of these as an ¨IETF consensus = no¨ RFC. >> >> But I'm still not getting ¨please publish this, but it's not ready for publication¨! >> >> Spencer > >
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature