idnits 2.17.00 (12 Aug 2021) /tmp/idnits58236/draft-leiba-extended-doc-shepherd-00.txt: Checking boilerplate required by RFC 5378 and the IETF Trust (see https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info): ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/1id-guidelines.txt: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist : ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Miscellaneous warnings: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == The copyright year in the IETF Trust and authors Copyright Line does not match the current year -- The document date (August 2, 2012) is 3578 days in the past. Is this intentional? Checking references for intended status: Informational ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Summary: 0 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 1 warning (==), 1 comment (--). Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about the items above. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 Network Working Group B. Leiba 3 Internet-Draft Huawei Technologies 4 Intended status: Informational August 2, 2012 5 Expires: February 3, 2013 7 Document Shepherding Throughout a Document's Lifecycle 8 draft-leiba-extended-doc-shepherd-00 10 Abstract 12 RFC 4858 talks about "Document Shepherding from Working Group Last 13 Call to Publication". There's a significant part of a document's 14 life that happens before working group last call, starting, really, 15 at the time a working group begins discussing a version of the idea 16 that's been posted as an individual draft. It seems reasonable and 17 helpful to begin shepherding when there's a call for adoption as a 18 working group document, and this document gives one Area Director's 19 view of how that extended shepherding function might work, and what 20 tasks might be involved throughout the document's lifecycle. 22 Status of this Memo 24 This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the 25 provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. 27 Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering 28 Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute 29 working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- 30 Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. 32 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months 33 and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any 34 time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference 35 material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." 37 This Internet-Draft will expire on February 3, 2013. 39 Copyright Notice 41 Copyright (c) 2012 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the 42 document authors. All rights reserved. 44 This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal 45 Provisions Relating to IETF Documents 46 (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of 47 publication of this document. Please review these documents 48 carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect 49 to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must 50 include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of 51 the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as 52 described in the Simplified BSD License. 54 Table of Contents 56 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 57 1.1. Notational Conventions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 59 2. The Document Shepherd as a "Function" . . . . . . . . . . . 5 61 3. Stages in a Document's Lifecycle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 62 3.1. Stage: Call for Adoption . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 63 3.2. Stage: Working Group Document . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 64 3.3. Stage: Working Group Last Call . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 65 3.4. Stage: Shepherd Writeup Underway . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 66 3.5. Stage: AD Review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 67 3.6. Stage: IETF Last Call . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 68 3.7. Stage: Waiting for AD Go-Ahead . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 69 3.8. Stage: IESG Evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 70 3.9. Stage: Approved by the IESG . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 71 3.10. Stage: In RFC Editor Queue . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 72 3.11. Stage: AUTH48 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 73 3.12. Stage: Published . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 75 4. Some Final Notes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 77 5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 79 6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 81 7. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 82 7.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 83 7.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 85 Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 87 1. Introduction 89 RFC 4858 talks about "Document Shepherding from Working Group Last 90 Call to Publication" [RFC4858]. There's a significant part of a 91 document's life that happens before Working Group Last Call, 92 starting, really, at the time a working group begins discussing a 93 version of the idea that's been posted as an individual draft. It 94 seems reasonable and helpful to begin shepherding at the time there's 95 a call for adoption as a working group document, and this document 96 gives one Area Director's view of how that extended shepherding 97 function might work, and what tasks might be involved throughout the 98 document's lifecycle. 100 It has been very common to see documents -- including some that I 101 have authored, and some for which I have been the Responsible Chair 102 -- progress far too slowly, sometimes languishing for many months and 103 even for years due to neglect. Sometimes a working group will 104 intentionally set a document aside, put it on a back burner while it 105 works on more pressing things. But it's often *not* intentional, and 106 the document sits around because of lack of follow-through, waking up 107 occasionally when someone realizes that the last version has expired 108 and an IETF meeting is coming up soon. 110 We would really prefer to process documents efficiently, ensuring 111 that whatever happens is intentional: that documents are set aside 112 only when it makes sense to do so, and that active documents move 113 forward in the process, with someone assigned to make sure that 114 happens. 116 This document suggests specific tasks a Working Group Chair should be 117 doing or delegating in order to maintain forward progress, 118 accountability, and quality control on a working group document. It 119 adds to what's in RFC 4858, intending to extend it, not replace it. 120 Major extensions involve assigning a Shepherd and defining specific 121 tasks earlier in a document's life, and possibly delegating Document 122 Shepherd tasks to a Shepherd who is neither a Chair nor the Working 123 Group Secretary (consistent with the IESG Statement on Document 124 Shepherds [Stmt]). 126 By providing summaries in each section of the tasks expected at that 127 stage in the document's lifecycle, I hope to make this an easy 128 reference and checklist for Working Group Chairs and Document 129 Shepherds. 131 1.1. Notational Conventions 133 Because this document is specifically one individual's thoughts on 134 this matter, it's worth pointing out that the document makes no 135 process changes and there is no normative language here. 137 I use Initial Capitals in some terms, such as "Document Shepherd", to 138 indicate that those terms represent formal roles in the management 139 model I'm describing. 141 2. The Document Shepherd as a "Function" 143 This document looks at the Document Shepherd as a "function", rather 144 than as a single person. The Document Shepherd Function has a set of 145 tasks that need to be performed, but the tasks do not all have to be 146 performed by one individual. 148 While, ultimately, it is the responsibility of the Working Group 149 Chairs to ensure that the shepherding tasks get done, the Chairs do 150 not have to do all those tasks by themselves. From Section 6.1 of 151 the Working Group Guidelines and Procedures [RFC2418]: 153 The Working Group Chair is concerned with making forward progress 154 through a fair and open process, and has wide discretion in the 155 conduct of WG business. The Chair must ensure that a number of 156 tasks are performed, either directly or by others assigned to the 157 tasks. 159 This document proposes an extended set of Document Shepherd tasks, 160 well beyond those covered in RFC 4858. In many cases it will be 161 reasonable to assign the entire Document Shepherd Function to one 162 person (to a Chair or to a non-chair delegate), but in many other 163 cases the Chairs will likely choose to delegate parts of that 164 function and keep other parts for themselves. In any case, the 165 Chairs remain responsible for the management of the working group; 166 they are whom the Area Director will come to if something goes wrong 167 or things fail to make progress. 169 As I talk, then, about what the "Document Shepherd" does, understand 170 that the individual doing each particular task will be the one 171 assigned that task as the work on a particular document is laid out. 172 When I say that the Shepherd should do a task in consultation with 173 the Chairs, that's automatically true when it's already a Chair who's 174 doing it. 176 And this bears repeating, so I will say it more than once here: 177 Nothing in this document is suggesting that the Working Group Chairs 178 abdicate any responsibility. They have the final responsibility for 179 managing each document's progress and for managing the working group 180 in general. Any Chair who chooses to delegate some of this 181 responsibility must still ensure that it's carried out properly. And 182 any Chair who does not feel comfortable delegating any of this should 183 not do so. 185 3. Stages in a Document's Lifecycle 187 From the time a working group is asked to take on a document as one 188 of its work items, the document will go through a number of stages: 190 1. Call for Adoption 191 2. Working Group Document 192 3. Working Group Last Call 193 4. Shepherd Writeup Underway 194 5. AD Review 195 6. IETF Last Call 196 7. Waiting for AD Go-Ahead 197 8. IESG Evaluation 198 9. Approved by the IESG 199 10. In RFC Editor Queue 200 11. AUTH48 201 12. Published 203 Through most of those stages steps will have to be taken, tasks will 204 need to be performed, to make sure the document moves forward, that 205 consensus is reached, that the right reviews are done, that updates 206 are made, that consensus still holds after significant changes, and 207 so on. That set of tasks comprises the Document Shepherd Function. 209 The following sections will discuss some of the tasks needed at each 210 stage, and will suggest how Working Group Chairs might handle those 211 tasks and their delegation -- how the Document Shepherd Function 212 might work. The details will vary, depending upon how each working 213 group is managed, but what follows should be a good example, and will 214 provide a basis for adaptation. And see also Section 3 of [RFC4858]. 216 3.1. Stage: Call for Adoption 218 At the point that the working group begins considering adoption of a 219 document, the Working Group Chairs have some decisions to make. This 220 is the time to choose a Responsible Chair for the document, much as 221 it will eventually have a Responsible Area Director later in its 222 life. The Responsible Chair will be the one who oversees the 223 Document Shepherd Function and has primary responsibility for making 224 sure that everything gets done. 226 The Responsible Chair should then (perhaps in consultation with the 227 other Chair(s), depending upon the Chairs' agreement about division 228 of work) decide how much of the Document Shepherd Function to handle 229 herself, and which pieces, if any, to delegate. Examples might be as 230 follows: 232 o The Responsible Chair will be the sole Document Shepherd. 234 o The Responsible Chair will be the Document Shepherd through the 235 end of the Working Group Document stage, and will appoint a non- 236 chair Shepherd during that stage to handle subsequent shepherding 237 tasks (similar to what's set out in RFC 4858). 239 o The Responsible Chair will appoint a non-chair Shepherd to handle 240 the early shepherding tasks, and the Responsible Chair will take 241 over the Document Shepherd tasks for Working Group Last Call and 242 beyond (the converse of the previous example). 244 o The Responsible Chair will appoint a non-chair Shepherd to handle 245 all shepherding tasks from start to end. The delegate will work 246 closely with the Responsible Chair, heavily supervised (perhaps 247 this is a training situation). 249 o The Responsible Chair will appoint a non-chair Shepherd to handle 250 all shepherding tasks from start to end. The delegate will report 251 to the Responsible Chair, and will be supervised at certain key 252 points. 254 o The Responsible Chair will appoint a non-chair Shepherd to handle 255 all shepherding tasks autonomously (perhaps for a very experienced 256 Shepherd, well trusted by the Chairs). 258 And so on... there may be many combinations, many levels of 259 supervision vs autonomy, many ways to divide the work. It's also 260 possible to delegate to more than one non-chair Shepherd at different 261 stages, though I don't think that's a good idea -- the continuity and 262 centralized responsibility of making it one other person (supervised 263 by one Responsible Chair) seems best. 265 Some Chairs may prefer to handle all tasks themselves, because, after 266 all, they remain responsible for their successful completion. Yet 267 there's a lot to be gained by delegating much of the work. 268 Delegating work and giving a degree of responsibility to relatively 269 more junior participants gets people more closely engaged with the 270 working group and with the IETF. Giving significant responsibility 271 can be an excellent training exercise, preparing participants to take 272 on future roles as Working Group Chairs. And in a busy working 273 group, offloading work from the Chairs to senior, experienced people 274 (perhaps former Chairs or former ADs) can prevent the Chairs from 275 being overcommitted, enabling the work to move forward much more 276 efficiently. 278 And, of course, a non-chair Shepherd can and should consult with the 279 Responsible Chair whenever she feels the need, and certainly whenever 280 issues arise of which the Chairs should be aware, or about which the 281 Shepherd needs advice or other help. 283 Once it is determined who will handle the Document Shepherd tasks, 284 the Shepherd needs to do the actual adoption process. The details 285 will vary based on how the particular working group is run, but a 286 typical process will start with posting a call for adoption to the 287 working group mailing list, pointing to the individual draft that's 288 being considered. There'll be a comment period for adoption 289 discussion, after which the Shepherd will, based on working group 290 discussion make a judgment and announce the result to the list. 292 Assuming that the document was adopted, the Chairs will appoint one 293 or more Editors for the working group version of the document (these 294 are often, but not always, the same people who wrote the individual 295 version, and the Chairs should put some thought into who the right 296 Editors should be), and will handle the datatracker updates (for 297 which Chair access is required). The Chairs should not forget to 298 record the name and email address of the Document Shepherd in the 299 tracker -- this will ensure that the Shepherd is copied on necessary 300 email later. 302 In summary, the tasks at the Call for Adoption stage might be as 303 follows: 305 1. Chairs: Select a Responsible Chair to handle the document. 306 2. Responsible Chair: Decide on a work/delegation plan. 307 3. Responsible Chair: Possibly appoint a non-chair Shepherd; else 308 the Responsible Chair becomes the Shepherd. 309 4. Shepherd: Make the call for adoption; set deadlines and schedule. 310 5. Shepherd: Announce the result; Chairs: appoint Document Editor(s) 311 for the WG document. 312 6. Chairs: Update the datatracker; approve -00 version submission. 314 3.2. Stage: Working Group Document 316 Once a -00 version is posted, the Shepherd's primary task is to keep 317 the document moving forward: keeping discussion going, making sure 318 issues are tracked and document updates are posted, and helping 319 things toward consensus. Let's not downplay the importance of active 320 management here: this is where things so often fall short, what 321 causes documents to take *years* to complete. The Shepherd should 322 not rush discussions that are useful, but the Shepherd should make 323 sure that things don't get lost in the forest either. 325 The Chairs will decide how the working group should be managed, and 326 any non-chair Shepherd should be working with the Chairs at this 327 stage, communicating any difficulties and getting help with issue 328 resolution when needed. Tools such as the issue tracker and the 329 working group wiki, which are available to every working group, may 330 be helpful here -- particularly if many issues come up, if issues are 331 often taking a long time to be resolved, or if the same issues tend 332 to come up repeatedly. The issue tracker can be used to record not 333 just the issues themselves, but significant parts of the discussion 334 on both sides, helping to make it clearer what the resolution was and 335 why, and whether a particular request to re-open a closed issue 336 really involves new points or is just a re-hash. 338 Discussions need to be steered, with a goal of avoiding unproductive, 339 circular discussions, re-hashing of old arguments, and tangential 340 discussions that go "off into the weeds". Discussions also often 341 need to be prodded. Lulls can be fine, but when it looks like 342 nothing is happening for a while, remind the participants of open 343 issues, ask for reviews of updated document versions or of recent 344 changes that don't seem to have been discussed. It's often useful to 345 make specific requests of participants off list. The goal here is to 346 ensure that rough consensus is reached on the document, covering as 347 much of the document as possible, and certainly covering the key 348 points. 350 Document Editors need to be prodded as well. We're all volunteers, 351 and many of us are working on a lot of things. A particular document 352 can fall off to the side for a long while. It's best to avoid the 353 trap of getting updates only before each IETF meeting, just in time 354 to beat the submission cutoff. If updates aren't posted fairly 355 promptly after a set of issues is resolved, ask the Editors when 356 they'll be able to get changes rolled into a new document version. 357 Check that the Editors are following working group consensus as they 358 make their updates. 360 Even with plenty of prodding and reminding and steering, it happens 361 that a document simply can't be finished and abandoning it needs to 362 be considered. Perhaps there's no longer the interest there was at 363 adoption. Perhaps the document has been overtaken by other events. 364 Or perhaps there's too much controversy over it, and rough consensus 365 just isn't going to happen. The Shepherd should consult with the 366 Chairs to decide whether the working group should stop work on the 367 document. 369 The Shepherd will know when the document is moving from this stage 370 into the next, and when she needs to shift the focus into preparation 371 for last call and for getting the document to the AD. 373 In summary, the tasks for the Shepherd at the Working Group Document 374 stage might be as follows: 376 1. Work with the Chairs to understand the desired mechanism for 377 managing discussions. 378 2. Watch the discussions as they unfold; call out and record 379 specific issues that come up. 380 3. Steer the discussion when necessary. 381 4. Prod the discussions when necessary. 382 5. Prod the Document Editors when necessary. 383 6. Use appropriate tools, such as issue trackers and wikis. 384 7. Determine when it's time to start wrapping things up and moving 385 to Working Group Last Call. 386 8. Alternatively, determine that it's not possible to move the 387 document forward, and the Chairs need to consider abandoning it. 389 3.3. Stage: Working Group Last Call 391 When any contentious issues have been resolved and the document has 392 had a good level of review, the Shepherd should start looking at when 393 it's time to wrap things up, have a last call within the working 394 group, and get the document ready to send to the Responsible AD. 395 What needs to be done now is largely the same as in the Working Group 396 Document stage, but with a particular aim of getting remaining issues 397 closed and making sure that discussions are tightly focused. Where 398 veering off to explore things that might be added to the document was 399 a fine thing to do in the earlier stages, this is the time to say 400 that the document is "feature complete", and to keep discussions 401 reined in. 403 Working Group Last Call is a recommended step, though not a required 404 one, and most working groups do issue a formal "last call" before 405 sending the document to the Responsible AD. The Shepherd can take 406 the responsibility of issuing that message and of analyzing comments 407 to determine whether things are ready to go ahead. 409 This is also the time to make sure that important reviews are done. 410 Ask for reviews from key working group contributors, and check 411 whether any external reviews are needed. External reviews might 412 include expert reviews for IANA registrations, reviews of formal 413 specifications such as MIBs, XML, and ABNF, and reviews from experts 414 in other areas (does the document need to be checked by a web 415 services expert, a security expert, a DNS expert?). Some of this 416 will happen automatically later -- there will be a Security 417 Directorate review at some point, for example -- but it's easier on 418 the Document Editors and the working group if you know something is 419 particularly necessary and arrange for it sooner. The IANA folks are 420 willing to do an early review of the IANA actions at this stage, so 421 consider asking for that if the document has a large or unusually 422 involved set of IANA actions. 424 The shepherd writeup, which can be found in the IESG section of the 425 IETF web site [Writeup], is a good reference to the Shepherd for 426 making sure the necessary bits are being covered, so this is also a 427 good time to start the writeup. It will be finished later, when the 428 document is ready to be sent to the Responsible AD, but getting a 429 start now can be helpful, and will serve as a reminder to ask the 430 questions and request the reviews that will later be needed. 432 The tasks for the Shepherd at the Working Group Last Call stage might 433 be as follows: 435 1. Issue an official "Working Group Last Call" message on the list, 436 with a reasonable deadline given. 437 2. Closely watch the reviews and discussions at this stage, and make 438 sure they are focused on closing final issues and giving the 439 document final review. 440 3. Specifically ask (perhaps off list) for key reviews. 441 4. Begin preparing the shepherd writeup, and request any external 442 reviews that will be needed. 443 5. Analyze the results of Working Group Last Call and get final 444 updates from the Document Editors. 446 3.4. Stage: Shepherd Writeup Underway 448 Working Group Last Call is over, and the Shepherd has determined that 449 any issues that came out of that have been adequately resolved. It's 450 time to finish up the shepherd writeup, dotting the last of the "i"s 451 and crossing the final "t"s. 453 Remember that the shepherd writeup serves two major purposes: 454 1. It ensures that some key items have been double checked. 455 2. It provides information to the IESG, which is useful during IESG 456 Evaluation. 457 For the first purpose, "yes" and "no" are reasonable answers to some 458 of the writeup questions. In particular, a number of the questions 459 ask if something has been checked, or it some abnormal situation 460 exists. "Yes" to confirm that the check has been made, or "no" to 461 state that the abnormal situation does not exist are fine responses. 462 Of course, if the answer to the first is "no" or to the second is 463 "yes", further explanation is necessary. In other words, "yes" could 464 be a reasonable answer by itself, but "no" would require more by way 465 of explanation... or vice versa. 467 But for the second purpose, providing useful information to the IESG, 468 yes/no responses are of little or no use. Questions about the 469 working group process and discussions are especially looking for some 470 sort of narrative information. Don't just say that there was much 471 discussion that eventually reached consensus, or that there were a 472 number of controversial points that were resolved -- say something 473 about the discussion, talk a bit about the controversies. If there 474 were particular points that simply did not get any discussion but 475 probably should have, say that. 477 Knowing the trouble spots, and the strong and weak points of the 478 discussion and consensus, will allow the IESG to properly evaluate 479 the document. That can avoid the IESG's revisiting issues that were 480 already done to death in the working group. It's common to have 481 DISCUSS positions in which ADs are questioning a point that the 482 working group discussed at length, and a brief explanation in the 483 writeup could have avoided having it come up again then. 485 When the Shepherd has the writeup done, a non-chair Shepherd should 486 consult with the Chairs to make sure they're happy with it and agree 487 with what's in it. The Chairs will then need to make some 488 datatracker updates that only they have authorization for: they will 489 upload the writeup to the tracker and change the document state. 491 Finally, the Shepherd (or the Responsible Chair) will email the 492 writeup to the Responsible AD, with CC to the IESG Secretary, asking 493 that the document be considered for publication. Including the 494 writeup in email, as well as in the tracker, and including the IESG 495 Secretary on CC, are both meant to ensure that nothing gets lost and 496 that a record is kept of the publication request. And as RFC 4858 497 says, the Shepherd should also email the writeup to the working 498 group's mailing list, so the working group is aware of it. The 499 writeup will be public anyway, because it will be in the datatracker, 500 so it can only help the open process to make it more visible to the 501 working group whose work it reflects. 503 See also Section 3.1 of [RFC4858], but note that the writeup template 504 has changed significantly since the version in that document. The 505 current writeup is in the IESG section of the IETF web site 506 [Writeup]. 508 The tasks at the Shepherd Writeup Underway stage might be as follows: 510 1. Shepherd: Complete the shepherd writeup and send it to the Chairs 511 for approval. 512 2. Chairs: Work with the Shepherd to finalize the writeup. 513 3. Chairs: Put the writeup into the datatracker, and change the 514 tracker document state to the appropriate one for requesting 515 publication. 516 4. Shepherd: Send the writeup to the Responsible AD (and the IESG 517 Secretary) and request publication. 519 3.5. Stage: AD Review 521 The next stage in the process is up to the Responsible Area Director, 522 and the Document Shepherd has but one easy task: make this stage as 523 short as possible. The Responsible AD or the IESG Secretary will do 524 some document state changes in the datatracker (to Publication 525 Requested and then to AD Review), and the AD will review the document 526 and either request IETF Last Call or respond to the authors (and, we 527 hope, to the Shepherd as well; here's where it was useful to have put 528 the Shepherd's email address in the tracker) with review comments and 529 suggested changes. In the latter case, the document's state will 530 change to "AD Review, Revised I-D Needed". 532 The Shepherd needs to watch for the key state changes and the AD's 533 review. If the review doesn't happen in a reasonable time -- 534 allowing for a busy AD's schedule and remembering that the document 535 you're shepherding isn't the only one on the AD's docket -- send a 536 reminder... perhaps as a question, "How is the review on 537 draft-ietf-frobozz-xyzzy coming?" Use your judgment to decide how 538 long to wait, but most ADs will appreciate a reminder here and there 539 as long as it's not at the level of "pestering". 541 Once the review comes in, make sure the Document Editors are on top 542 of it and respond in a timely manner. Make sure that the working 543 group is consulted on issues brought up in the review that are 544 significant enough to require the working group's engagement in the 545 response. Editorial tweaks can arguably be handled by the editors 546 alone at this point, and changes to the protocol clearly need to go 547 back to the working group, but many issues fall in between, and good 548 judgment is important. 550 Many documents spend *months* in AD Review state, largely because of 551 lack of good shepherding. It may look like there's only one major 552 task here, but it's an important one. Please don't give it short 553 shrift. 555 See also Section 3.2 of [RFC4858]. 557 The tasks for the Shepherd at the AD Review stage might be as 558 follows: 560 1. Make sure the AD reviews the document in a timely manner, and 561 send occasional reminders as needed. 562 2. Make sure the Document Editors respond to the review in a timely 563 manner, and poke them as well, as needed. 564 3. Keep the dialogue going between the Responsible AD and the 565 editors until all issues have been dealt with and the document is 566 ready for the next stage. 568 4. See to it that issues are brought back before the working group 569 if they are significant enough to require it. 571 3.6. Stage: IETF Last Call 573 Once the Responsible AD is satisfied that the document is ready to 574 move ahead, she will put it in Last Call Requested state. That 575 prompts the IESG Secretary to send out the Last Call announcement and 576 to put the document into "In Last Call". 578 The Shepherd's job in the IETF Last Call stage is very similar to 579 what's needed in AD Review. Start by watching for last-call 580 comments, including various special reviews. Reviews will come in 581 from the Security Directorate and the General Area Review Team 582 (GenART), and some may also come from other review teams and 583 directorates. Reviews might also be coming in at this stage, if they 584 haven't already, that were specifically requested by the Shepherd 585 (see the Working Group Last Call stage). 587 The Shepherd needs to make sure all of those reviews are addressed by 588 the document editors, and that the specifically requested reviews get 589 done. "Addressed" doesn't mean that every change asked for in every 590 last-call comment needs to be made. Sometimes, a reasonable response 591 is to say that the working group discussed the point, and the 592 document correctly reflects its consensus -- that is, the working 593 group disagrees with the last-call comment. At other times, it's 594 reasonable to disagree with the reviewer and look for any other 595 support for the reviewer's position. Rough consensus can be a tricky 596 thing, but the bottom line is that all comments need at least be 597 considered. Directorate and review-team reviews, in particular, 598 require acknowledgment and response (though they, too, can be 599 disagreed with). 601 During Last Call, IANA will review the document's IANA 602 Considerations, will respond with their summary of what they think 603 needs to be done by IANA after the document is approved, and will ask 604 any questions they have. The Shepherd should watch for this review 605 and make sure that the actions IANA proposes are correct and that any 606 questions they have are answered. See also Section 4 of [RFC4858]. 608 Different Responsible ADs will have different preferences for whether 609 documents in IETF Last Call should be updated while they're still in 610 that state. The Shepherd should check with the AD and advise the 611 Document Editors. Sometimes it's best to keep a stable version 612 throughout last-call review; other times it's better to get changes 613 posted quickly, so the same issues aren't brought up by multiple 614 reviewers. Work with the AD and the editors to handle this. 616 The tasks for the Shepherd at the IETF Last Call stage might be as 617 follows: 619 1. Monitor the last-call comments, and make sure that specifically 620 requested reviews arrive. 621 2. Make sure the Document Editors respond to all reviews and 622 comments in a timely manner. 623 3. Keep the dialogue going between the community and the editors 624 until all issues have been dealt with. 625 4. See to it that issues are brought back before the working group 626 if they are significant enough to require it. 628 3.7. Stage: Waiting for AD Go-Ahead 630 When Last Call completes, the tracker state for the document will 631 automatically go to "Waiting for AD Go-Ahead". This is the 632 Shepherd's signal to re-check the comments from last call, to make 633 sure an updated I-D is posted that is ready for IESG Evaluation, and 634 to let the Responsible AD know when everything is set. The AD will 635 be watching for this as well, and in many cases the Shepherd won't 636 need to be involved here. But, as in the other stages, it's the 637 Shepherd's responsibility to keep an eye on things and make sure 638 what's needed gets done. 640 The tasks for the Shepherd at the Waiting for AD Go-Ahead stage might 641 be as follows: 643 1. Make sure a new I-D is posted with the latest changes, unless 644 there were no changes required. 645 2. Inform the Responsible AD that all changes have been 646 incorporated, and that the document is ready for IESG Evaluation. 647 3. Update the Shepherd writeup if anything has come up during Last 648 Call that the IESG should know about. 650 3.8. Stage: IESG Evaluation 652 As the ADs do their reviews they will record ballot positions on the 653 document. Ballot positions can be one of "Yes", "No Objection", 654 "Discuss", and "Abstain" (there's also "Recuse" for cases when the AD 655 has a conflict of interest with the document (if, for example, the AD 656 is one of the authors/editors)). Any of these ballot positions can 657 be accompanied by non-blocking review comments, and "Discuss" also 658 comes with blocking comments in addition -- these must be resolved to 659 the satisfaction of the Discussing AD before the document can be 660 approved by by the IESG. The document will be scheduled for a bi- 661 weekly "telechat" (at the time of this writing they're on Thursdays), 662 and it will be approved then or left in one of several follow-up 663 states. 665 The IESG Evaluation period is normally somewhere between one and 666 three weeks, though it can be as little as a day or two in unusual 667 circumstances. Be aware, though, that there's usually a burst of 668 review activity in the final few days before the telechat, and expect 669 most reviews to come in then. 671 The IESG Evaluation comments and DISCUSS positions will be copied to 672 the Document Shepherd (again, it was important to have put the 673 Shepherd's email address in the tracker), and the Shepherd should be 674 watching for them and making sure that the Document Editors respond 675 promptly -- at this stage, quick turnaround is most important. 676 Sometimes the Shepherd or Chairs might respond to AD questions and 677 comments themselves, and sometimes they might leave it to the 678 editors. The process works best when everyone engages, with the goal 679 of resolving the issues brought up by the ADs as efficiently as 680 possible. 682 A word about DISCUSS positions: Many Document Editors treat these as 683 adversarial situations created by aggressive ADs, but that's 684 generally not the intent. First, many DISCUSSes are resolved quickly 685 and easily by a round of email with the Discussing AD, and that's as 686 it should be: the point is that the AD has something to "discuss" 687 with those responsible for the document before she can agree to the 688 document's approval. Second, many DISCUSSes that do take more 689 effort, often significant back and forth with the Discussing AD and 690 other IESG members, result in a better document, having cleared up 691 some significant confusion or having closed a hole in the 692 specification that was missed at earlier stages. Please try to treat 693 the situation as one in which everyone is looking to make the 694 document better. 696 Most often, ADs who record DISCUSS positions (and review comments) 697 are quite responsive, and will work with the Editors and Shepherd to 698 get everything resolved. Sometimes, though, a busy AD can find 699 herself lacking the time to respond. The Shepherd should keep the 700 ADs honest, pushing for quick responses. In earlier stages, too- 701 frequent reminders might be considered unreasonable, but at this 702 stage discussion should be fairly brisk, and a delay of more than a 703 couple of days should be unusual, on either side. 705 The IESG web site has more details about IESG ballot positions 706 [Ballot] and about IESG DISCUSS ballots in particular [Discuss]. And 707 see also Section 3.3 of [RFC4858]. 709 The tasks for the Shepherd at the IESG Evaluation stage might be as 710 follows: 712 1. Keep track of the DISCUSS positions and review comments by the 713 IESG. 714 2. Make sure all comments are addressed, and help the discussions of 715 DISCUSS positions reach closure. 716 3. Keep both the Document Editors and the Discussing AD engaged in 717 the resolution of the issues. 719 3.9. Stage: Approved by the IESG 721 Once the document has been on a telechat, any necessary revised 722 versions have been posted, and all DISCUSS positions are "cleared", 723 the Responsible AD (or the IESG Secretary) will put the document into 724 the "Approved, Announcement to be Sent" state. If there's any 725 follow-up that needs to be done, it will be held with a sub-state 726 (usually "Point Raised, Writeup Needed"), and the Shepherd should 727 make sure whatever final checks that are needed get done, and that 728 the Responsible AD clears the sub-state and informs the IESG 729 Secretary. 731 At this stage, it's usually a matter of making sure that the latest 732 version of the document adequately addresses the non-blocking 733 comments by the ADs, and that any necessary RFC Editor notes are 734 entered. The Shepherd should work with the Responsible AD to 735 understand what still needs to be done, and to make sure it happens. 737 The tasks for the Shepherd at the Approved by the IESG stage might be 738 as follows: 740 1. Work with the Responsible AD to understand what still needs to be 741 addressed. 742 2. Double-check the IANA actions and the RFC Editor notes, and 743 follow up on any errors or omissions. 744 3. Make sure the Document Editors and the Responsible AD move the 745 document to the final Approved state. 747 3.10. Stage: In RFC Editor Queue 749 Shortly after the approval announcement is sent out, the document 750 will go into the RFC Editor queue, and the Shepherd will start seeing 751 it pass through a number of RFC Editor states. For most of this, the 752 Shepherd need do nothing, and is just waiting for the AUTH48 state. 753 This will usually take between a few weeks and a few months, 754 depending upon many factors, but it can be held up indefinitely by 755 normative references to documents that are not yet ready for 756 publication. Be aware of what the document is waiting for, and 757 otherwise just wait. If anything looks odd, ask the Responsible AD 758 to check. 760 The tasks for the Shepherd at the In RFC Editor Queue stage might be 761 as follows: 763 1. Sip tea or drink beer or wine, and wait for AUTH48. 764 2. Talk to the Responsible AD if something doesn't look right. 766 3.11. Stage: AUTH48 768 AUTH48 is an RFC Editor state that occurs when the RFC Editors have 769 done their final edits on the document before publication. It's 770 meant to represent a 48-hour period in which the AUTHors can review 771 what the RFC Editor has changed, have a final look at the document, 772 and make sure it's ready to go. 774 AUTH48 is a critical document state; do not downplay its importance. 775 At this stage, the Shepherd should re-review the document, paying 776 special attention to recent changes. The Document Editors must do 777 the same, and a response from every Author/Editor listed at the top 778 of the document is required before the RFC Editor will finish the 779 publication process. The Document Shepherd needs to make sure that 780 the Editors all respond, and should take the lead in prompting them 781 early and frequently. Remember that "AUTH48" is meant to refer to 48 782 hours, not 48 days. Don't let this drag on. 784 The RFC Editor will often have questions that the Authors/Editors 785 need to answer. The Document Editors often have minor changes to 786 insert at this point. The Shepherd should consider those answers, 787 those changes, and the changes the RFC Editor has made leading into 788 AUTH48, and assess (in consultation with the Chairs and the 789 Responsible AD) whether any changes need to be passed back to the 790 working group -- remember that the document has been approved by 791 rough consensus of the working group, and then of the IETF as a 792 whole, and the final, published version must continue to reflect that 793 consensus. 795 It's unusual for there to be significant controversy at this stage, 796 but it's been known to happen. Sometimes a change or a question by 797 the RFC Editor will raise a question with the Document Editors that 798 had not come up before. Sometimes, the right answer to one of those 799 questions will be more than just editorial, and sometimes it will 800 involve a significant technical decision. Decisions of that nature 801 should not be made by the Document Editors alone, and the Shepherd 802 should arrange to have them discussed by the working group. 804 Most of the time, though, this stage will run smoothly, the Document 805 Editors will respond to the AUTH48 messages with a minimum of 806 prodding, and the RFC Editor will announce their happiness and 807 proceed with the publication process. 809 See also Section 5 of [RFC4858]. 811 The tasks for the Shepherd at the AUTH48 stage might be as follows: 813 1. Monitor the AUTH48 process and make sure all questions are 814 answered and all Authors/Editors respond as needed. 815 2. Assess whether any issues that come up are significant enough to 816 need review by the working group. 818 3.12. Stage: Published 820 We're done. The RFC Editor has published the document, and the RFC 821 announcement has been made. Many thanks to the Shepherd for having 822 seen it through and for helping to assure a high quality document. 824 4. Some Final Notes 826 I've outlined a Document Shepherding Function, above, in a lot of 827 detail, so let's put the executive summary back here: 829 What it all boils down to is setting up one person who takes 830 responsibility for following the progress of a document from Call for 831 Adoption through Publication, staying actively involved with managing 832 the discussion and issue resolution at every stage, and making sure 833 the necessary participants are responsive and that things don't 834 languish from inattention. 836 And again, Working Group Chairs may delegate all or part of this 837 function to a non-chair participant, or retain all responsibility for 838 it themselves. In the latter case, I don't think what I'm describing 839 here is anything different to what should be happening already. 840 Setting it out as clear tasks and a set of stages in the document's 841 lifecycle will make it easier to recognize what needs to be done 842 when, and to handle delegation when the Chairs choose to delegate. 844 5. Security Considerations 846 This document describes an individual's suggestion about IETF 847 process, and is entirely unrelated to security in any way. 849 [The RFC Editor is asked to remove either this section or this 850 paragraph, depending upon publication policy.] 852 6. IANA Considerations 854 No IANA actions are requested by this document, and the RFC Editor is 855 asked to remove this section before publication. 857 7. References 859 7.1. Normative References 861 [RFC2418] Bradner, S., "IETF Working Group Guidelines and 862 Procedures", BCP 25, RFC 2418, September 1998. 864 [RFC4858] Levkowetz, H., Meyer, D., Eggert, L., and A. Mankin, 865 "Document Shepherding from Working Group Last Call to 866 Publication", RFC 4858, May 2007. 868 7.2. Informative References 870 [Ballot] IESG, "IESG Ballot Procedures", May 2009, 871 . 873 [Discuss] IESG, "DISCUSS Criteria in IESG Review", July 2007, 874 . 877 [Stmt] IESG, "IESG Statement on Document Shepherds", 878 October 2010, . 881 [Writeup] IESG, "Working Group Submission Writeup", February 2012, 882 . 884 Author's Address 886 Barry Leiba 887 Huawei Technologies 889 Phone: +1 646 827 0648 890 Email: barryleiba@computer.org 891 URI: http://internetmessagingtechnology.org/