The Tao of IETF: A Novice's Guide to the Internet Engineering Task Force
draft-hoffman-tao4677bis-16

IANA has reviewed draft-hoffman-tao4677bis-15, which is currently in Last Call, and has the following comments:

IANA notes that this document does not contain a standard IANA
Considerations section. After examining the draft, IANA understands
that, upon approval of this document, there are no IANA Actions that
need completion.

The following Last Call announcement was sent out:

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Last Call:  (The Tao of IETF: A Novice's Guide to the Internet Engineering Task Force) to Informational RFC


The IESG has received a request from an individual submitter to consider
the following document:
- 'The Tao of IETF: A Novice's Guide to the Internet Engineering Task
  Force'
  as Informational RFC

The Tao of the IETF has grown a bit stale.  For example, many of the
tasks that were requested by email are now done with online tools,
completely avoiding manual intervention by the Secretariat.  This is
an effort to refresh the document.

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@ietf.org mailing lists by 2012-06-27. Exceptionally, comments may be
sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the
beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting.

Abstract

  This document describes the inner workings of IETF meetings and
  Working Groups, discusses organizations related to the IETF, and
  introduces the standards process.  It is not a formal IETF process
  document but instead an informational overview.

The file can be obtained via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-hoffman-tao4677bis/

IESG discussion can be tracked via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-hoffman-tao4677bis/ballot/

No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D.

Write-up provided by Paul Hoffman ...

(1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard,
Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)?  Why
is this the proper type of RFC?  Is this type of RFC indicated in the
title page header?

Informational, because it was the last few times, yes.

(2) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document Announcement
Write-Up. Please provide such a Document Announcement Write-Up. Recent
examples can be found in the "Action" announcements for approved
documents. The approval announcement contains the following sections:

Technical Summary

  This document describes the inner workings of IETF meetings and
  Working Groups, discusses organizations related to the IETF, and
  introduces the standards process.  It is not a formal IETF process
  document but instead an informational overview.

Working Group Summary

  Not a WG document.

Document Quality

  It is a fairly straight upgrade from RFC 4677. There are a handful of
  changes due to changes in the IETF, and a bunch of additions that
  people have requested.

Personnel

  Paul Hoffman is the author, and Russ Housely is the responsible AD.

(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 wrote the document. I think it is ready for IETF Last Call, and expect that
new changes will be proposed during that review.

(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or
breadth of the reviews that have been performed? 

No. It has been extensively reviewed over the past few years, including by
many members of the IETF leadership.

(5) Do portions of the document need review from a particular or from
broader perspective, e.g., security, operational complexity, AAA, DNS,
DHCP, XML, or internationalization? If so, describe the review that
took place.

No.

(6) Describe any specific concerns or issues that the Document Shepherd
has 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.

None.

(7) Has each author confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR
disclosures required for full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78
and BCP 79 have already been filed. If not, explain why.

No IPR disclosures needed.

(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document?
If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR
disclosures.

None filed.

(9) 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?

I have heard no objection to anything in the document, and many people
seem to like it a lot.

(10) 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 publicly available.)

No.

(11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this
document. (See http://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts
Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be
thorough.

Nothing significant found.

(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review
criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.

None needed.

(13) Have all references within this document been identified as
either normative or informative?

All are "informative".

(14) 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 plan for their completion?

No. There is one dangling reference which is in the RFC Editor's queue:
[RFCtobeXXXX]  Kolkman, O. and J. Halpern, "RFC Editor Model (Version 2)",
RFC tobeXXXX, March 2012.

(15) Are there downward normative references references (see RFC 3967)?
If so, list these downward references to support the Area Director in the
Last Call procedure.

No.

(16) Will publication of this document change the status of any existing
RFCs? Are those RFCs listed on the title page header, listed in the
abstract, and discussed in the introduction? If the RFCs are not listed
in the Abstract and Introduction, explain why, and point to the part of
the document where the relationship of this document to the other RFCs
is discussed. If this information is not in the document, explain why
the interested community considers it unnecessary.

I did not put the fact that this obsoletes RFC 4677 in the abstract because I
didn't think it was important to the readers in the future. I would have no
objection if someone really wanted this addition.

(17) Describe the Document Shepherd's review of the IANA considerations
section, especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the
document. Confirm that all protocol extensions that the document makes
are associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries.
Confirm that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly
identified. Confirm that newly created IANA registries include a
detailed specification of the initial contents for the registry, that
allocations procedures for future registrations are defined, and a
reasonable name for the new registry has been suggested (see RFC 5226).

No IANA considerations.

(18) List any new IANA registries that require Expert Review for future
allocations. Provide any public guidance that the IESG would find
useful in selecting the IANA Experts for these new registries.

None.

(19) Describe reviews and automated checks performed by the Document
Shepherd to validate sections of the document written in a formal
language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc.

None.