Changes to the Internet Standards Process defined by RFC 2026
draft-carpenter-rfc2026-changes-02
Revision differences
Document history
Date | Rev. | By | Action |
---|---|---|---|
2015-10-14
|
02 | (System) | Notify list changed from brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com to (None) |
2008-07-27
|
02 | (System) | State Changes to Dead from AD is watching by system |
2008-07-27
|
02 | (System) | Document has expired |
2008-02-18
|
02 | Russ Housley | State Changes to AD is watching from Waiting for AD Go-Ahead by Russ Housley |
2008-02-18
|
02 | (System) | State has been changed to Waiting for AD Go-Ahead from In Last Call by system |
2008-02-06
|
02 | Amanda Baber | IANA Last Call comments: As described in the IANA Considerations section, we understand this document to have NO IANA Actions. |
2008-01-30
|
02 | Samuel Weiler | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Susan Thomson |
2008-01-30
|
02 | Samuel Weiler | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Susan Thomson |
2008-01-21
|
02 | Amy Vezza | Last call sent |
2008-01-21
|
02 | Amy Vezza | State Changes to In Last Call from Last Call Requested by Amy Vezza |
2008-01-18
|
02 | Russ Housley | State Changes to Last Call Requested from AD Evaluation::AD Followup by Russ Housley |
2008-01-18
|
02 | Russ Housley | Last Call was requested by Russ Housley |
2008-01-18
|
02 | (System) | Ballot writeup text was added |
2008-01-18
|
02 | (System) | Last call text was added |
2008-01-18
|
02 | (System) | Ballot approval text was added |
2008-01-18
|
02 | Russ Housley | Intended Status has been changed to BCP from Informational |
2008-01-18
|
02 | Russ Housley | (1.a) Who is the Document Shepherd for this document? Russ Housley (1.b) Has the document had adequate review both from … (1.a) Who is the Document Shepherd for this document? Russ Housley (1.b) Has the document had adequate review both from key members of the interested community and others? Does the Document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed? It has had some discussion on ietf@ietf.org. The IETF Last Call on this document will clearly cause more. (1.c) Does the Document Shepherd have concerns that the document needs more review from a particular or broader perspective, e.g., security, operational complexity, someone familiar with AAA, internationalization or XML? No (1.d) Does the Document Shepherd have any specific concerns or issues with this document that the Responsible Area Director and/or the IESG should be aware of? For example, perhaps he or she is uncomfortable with certain parts of the document, or has concerns whether there really is a need for it. In any event, if the interested community has discussed those issues and has indicated that it still wishes to advance the document, detail those concerns here. No (1.e) How solid is the consensus of the interested community behind this document? Does it represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others being silent, or does the interested community as a whole understand and agree with it? Since this document did not come from a WG, IETF Last Call is needed to determine consensus. (1.f) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If so, please summarise the areas of conflict in separate email messages to the Responsible Area Director. (It should be in a separate email because this questionnaire is entered into the ID Tracker.) No (1.g) Has the Document Shepherd personally verified that the document satisfies all ID nits? (See http://www.ietf.org/ID-Checklist.html and http://tools.ietf.org/tools/idnits/). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be thorough. Has the document met all formal review criteria it needs to, such as the MIB Doctor, media type and URI type reviews? OK (1.h) Has the document split its references into normative and informative? Are there normative references to documents that are not ready for advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state? If such normative references exist, what is the strategy for their completion? Are there normative references that are downward references, as described in [RFC3967]? If so, list these downward references to support the Area Director in the Last Call procedure for them [RFC3967]. OK (1.i) Has the Document Shepherd verified that the document IANA consideration section exists and is consistent with the body of the document? If the document specifies protocol extensions, are reservations requested in appropriate IANA registries? Are the IANA registries clearly identified? If the document creates a new registry, does it define the proposed initial contents of the registry and an allocation procedure for future registrations? Does it suggested a reasonable name for the new registry? See [I-D.narten-iana-considerations-rfc2434bis]. If the document describes an Expert Review process has Shepherd conferred with the Responsible Area Director so that the IESG can appoint the needed Expert during the IESG Evaluation? OK (1.j) Has the Document Shepherd verified that sections of the document that are written in a formal language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc., validate correctly in an automated checker? N/A (1.k) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document Announcement Write-Up. Please provide such a Document Announcement Writeup? Recent examples can be found in the "Action" announcements for approved documents. The approval announcement contains the following sections: Technical Summary This document defines a number of changes to RFC 2026, the basic definition of the IETF standards process. While some of them are definite changes to the rules, the intention is to preserve the main intent of the original rules, while adapting them to experience and current practice. RFC 2026 has been in force since 1996, and has proved robust and adequately flexible for the main part. However, some provisions have led to practical difficulties or lack clarity. The changes defined here are intended to tackle those issues. Working Group Summary There was a major attempt at updating the standards process by the NEWTRK WG several years ago, and by other non-WG efforts. These efforts have failed to reach any kind of consensus. This document aims at clearing up relatively minor aspects of the process rules without any fundamental change to current practice. It has been discussed in the IETF as a whole. [Add more after Last Call] Document Quality This document is structured as a set of changes to RFC 2026. It attempts to clarify the IETF rules applied in practice, so in that sense it documents running code. |
2008-01-16
|
02 | (System) | Sub state has been changed to AD Follow up from New Id Needed |
2008-01-16
|
02 | (System) | New version available: draft-carpenter-rfc2026-changes-02.txt |
2007-12-30
|
02 | Russ Housley | State Changes to AD Evaluation::Revised ID Needed from AD Evaluation by Russ Housley |
2007-12-30
|
02 | Russ Housley | State Changes to AD Evaluation from Publication Requested by Russ Housley |
2007-09-25
|
02 | Russ Housley | Draft Added by Russ Housley in state Publication Requested |
2007-09-25
|
01 | (System) | New version available: draft-carpenter-rfc2026-changes-01.txt |
2007-06-27
|
00 | (System) | New version available: draft-carpenter-rfc2026-changes-00.txt |