[rfc-i] FYI sub-series and RFC 1150 - proposal to update
housley at vigilsec.com
Mon Jun 6 11:38:45 PDT 2011
Here is the write-up that was provided as part of the publication request.
= = = = = = = =
Write-up for draft-iesg-rfc1150bis-01
(1.a) Who is the Document Shepherd for this document? Has the
Document Shepherd personally reviewed this version of the document
and, in particular, does he or she believe this version is ready
for forwarding to the IESG for publication?
Russ Housley will be the shepherd. He has reviewed the document, and
he believes it is ready for publication.
(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?
Version -00 of the document was discussed on the rfc-interest mail
list, and comments resulted in version -01 of the document.
(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?
(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.
(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?
The IESG has strong consensus to conclude the FYI sub-series.
(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.)
(1.g) Has the Document Shepherd personally verified that the
document satisfies all ID nits? (See the Internet-Drafts Checklist
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?
ID nits reports no problems. No concerns about formal review.
(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].
References are split. There are no downward references.
(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?
There are no actions for IANA.
(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
There is no formal language in the document.
(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:
This document concludes the For Your Information (FYI) sub-series of
RFCs, established by RFC 1150 for use by the IETF User Services Area,
which no longer exists. The IESG does not intend to make any further
additions to this RFC sub-series, and this document provides a record
of this decision. This document also obsoletes RFC 1150 and changes
the status of RFC 1150 to Historic.
Working Group Summary
This document is not the product of any IETF working group.
This document was discussed on the rfc-interest mail list. No one
spoke against closure of the FYI sub-series on that mail list.
RFC Editor Note
Please correct a typo in the first paragraph of Section 1:
... information that regarding the Internet and might be
interesting to ...
... information regarding the Internet that might be
interesting to ...
More information about the rfc-interest