Version 03 May 2004
The IESG Process and Tools (PROTO) Team is using the following questionnaire to guide the "Submission Writeups" pilot. We are asking the chairs fill out the following questionnaire for each document they wish to advance. Like the other PROTO pilots, we view this as an experiment that we will run for a bit and then assess whether this is helpful/useful. Specifically, you will be asked to complete a survey at the end of the pilot. Working group chairs are being asked to perform submission writeups for several reasons: to offload the ADs a bit, give working group chairs more responsibility, get things through the IESG faster (by addressing issues earlier that tend to trip up processing in the IESG), and give the Area Director an understanding of how ready a document really is.
There are two parts to this task. First, answer questions 1-8 so that your responsible Area Director can get insight into the working group process as applied to this draft. These questions may appear redundant in some cases but are written to elicit any tidbits of information that the AD should be aware of. (Pointers to relevant entries in the wg archive will be helpful.) The goal is to inform your AD about any issues that may have come up in IETF meetings, on the mailing list, or in private communication that they should be aware of prior to taking this draft to IESG. Don't be surprised if your AD has further questions. Any significant issues mentioned in the questionnaire will probably lead to a followup discussion with the AD.
The second part is to prepare the "Protocol Writeup" which is dually used first as the ballot writeup for the IESG telechat and then the IETF-wide protocol announcement. Item number 9 describes the elements of the writeup. If you haven't done this before, try looking at other protocol announcements (in the IETF Announce archive) and expect some comments from your AD on the draft.
The INT ADs would like to try out something new with regards to document advancement. We are asking the chairs fill out the following questionnaire for each document they wish to advance. We view this as an experiment that we will run for a bit and then assess whether this is helpful/useful. Purpose is to offload the ADs a bit, give chairs more responsibility, get things through the IESG faster (by addressing issues earlier that tend to trip up processing in the IESG), and get a better understanding of how ready a document really is.
Have the chairs personally reviewed this version of the ID and do they believe this ID is sufficiently baked to forward to the IESG for publication?
Has the document had adequate review from both key WG members and key non-WG members? Do you have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed?
Do you have concerns that the document needs more review from a particular (broader) perspective (e.g., security, operational complexity, someone familiar with AAA, etc.)?
Do you have any specific concerns/issues with this document that you believe the ADs and/or IESG should be aware of? For example, perhaps you are uncomfortable with certain parts of the document, or whether there really is a need for it, etc., but at the same time these issues have been discussed in the WG and the WG has indicated it wishes to advance the document anyway.
How solid is the WG consensus behind this document? Does it represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others being silent, or does the WG as a whole understand and agree with it?
Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If so, please summarize what are they upset about.
Have the chairs verified that the document adheres to _all_ of the ID nits? (see http://www.ietf.org/ID-nits.html).
Does the document a) split references into normative/informative, and b) are there normative references to IDs, where the IDs are not also ready for advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state? (Note: the RFC editor will not publish an RFC with normative references to IDs, it will delay publication until all such IDs are also ready for publication as RFCs.)
For Standards Track and BCP documents, the IESG approval announcement includes a writeup section with the following sections:
Please provide such a writeup. (We will hopefully use it as is, but may make some changes.) For recent examples, have a look at the "protocol action" announcements for approved documents.
Note:
When doing the technical summary, one would expect that the relevant information is in the abstract and/or introduction of the document. It turns out that the step of producing the writeup sometimes points out deficiencies in the introduction/abstract that are also worthy of rectifying.
For the Working Group Summary, was there anything in WG process that is worth noting? (E.g., controversy about particular points, decisions where concensus was particularly rough, etc.)
For the protocol quality, useful information could include:
- is the protocol already being implemented?
- have a significant number of vendors indicated they plan to implement the spec?
- are there any reviewers (during the end stages) that merit explicit mention as having done a thorough review that resulted in important changes or a conclusion that the document was fine (except for maybe some nits?)