Skip to main content

Shepherd writeup
draft-ietf-mtgvenue-meeting-policy

[Based on the 24 February 2012 template of the Document Shepherd
Write-Up.]

(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 title
page header?

BCP, as listed on the title page - This document defines an
administrative policy for the IETF. It is intended to be the product
of IETF consensus.

(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

The IETF currently strives to have a 1-1-1-* meeting policy, the goal
of which is where to distribute meeting locations equally between
North America, Europe, and Asia. This meeting rotation is aimed at
distributing the travel pain for IETF participants who physically
attend meetings and the time zone pain for those who participate
remotely.  This policy has neither been defined precisely nor
documented in an IETF consensus document.  This document is meant to
serve as a consensus-backed statement of this policy published as
a BCP.

Working Group Summary

There was relatively little discussion on this draft. It progressed
slowly but without much debate or heated discussion. There were only
minor changes to the draft. These were based on working group
discussion and consensus.  The most noteworthy items hashed out in the
working group were:
1) Consensus to leave the terms North America, Europe, and Asia vague
   and subject to interpretation
2) Consensus that maximizing in person attendance at meetings was not
   a goal of the policy
3) Consensus to use community consent as the bar for pursuing an
   exploratory meeting

Document Quality

The document went through a few rounds of light review, both before
being adopted as a working group document as well as once adopted. All
comments resulting from these reviews were addressed.

Personnel

Charles Eckel <eckelcu@cisco.com> is the shepherd.  
Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in> 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.

The shepherd has read each version of the document, including the
current one, and has read all commentary on the WG mailing list to
ensure that all issues were addressed.

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

No concerns.

(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 other specialist reviews required.

(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 WG has
discussed those issues and has indicated that it still wishes to
advance the document, detail those concerns here.

No major concerns. The document lacks a Security Considerations
section and an IANA Considerations section. The omission of these
sections is appropriate for this document. 

(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.

This is a non-technical document, no IPR should be applicable.  The
draft author has confirmed having no IPR associated with this draft.

(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 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?

There appears to be WG-wide agreement on the document.

(10) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme
discontent? If so, please summarize 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 appeals anticipated.

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

There are a couple nits to be addressed in the post-Last Call or
post-IESG review version of the document:

The copyright year in the IETF Trust and authors Copyright Line does
not match the current year (i.e. 2017 vs. 2018)

RFC 4071 is listed as a normative reference but there is not an
explicit reference to it within the text of the document. An explicit
reference should be added in section 2 where IASA is first mentioned,
and the reference should be changed from normative to informative.

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

No required formal reviews outside of normal IETF process
requirements.

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

Yes, with one normative reference to be recategorized as informational
as noted in (11).

(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.

(15) Are there downward normative 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 WG considers it unnecessary.

None noted.

(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 allocations.

(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.

No IANA allocations.

(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 needed.
Back