Do you all have a life..... -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Bert Wijnen (IETF) Sent: Saturday, August 09, 2008 4:12 PM To: Pete Resnick; IETF Discussion; IESG Subject: Fw: Call for review of proposed update to ID-Checklist (resend)
Oops, used wrong from address ----- Original Message ----- From: "Bert Wijnen" [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: "Pete Resnick" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <ietf@ietf.org> Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Saturday, August 09, 2008 9:25 PM Subject: Re: Call for review of proposed update to ID-Checklist > Pete, > > I am not sure how this helps. > I thought that ID authors/editors DO know what MUST/SHOULD means. > If not, then as far as I am concerned, we can change the capitalized words > into lower case. The front of the document shows (into with notes) clearly > waht the intent is. And is states that ADs will not accept a request > for publication and will not put it on the IESG agenda. > > Is that not clear enough? > > See also my response to Klensin and Crocker about the intent of the > document. > > That said, if Russ agrees, I can certainly add more boilerplate text as > you suggest below. I doubt it will make the document any more useful. > > Bert > Editor of ID_Checklist > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Pete Resnick" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <ietf@ietf.org> > Cc: "IETF Chair" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <ietf@ietf.org>; "IETF Announcement > list" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Tuesday, July 08, 2008 9:17 PM > Subject: Re: Call for review of proposed update to ID-Checklist > > > Re: Call for review of proposed update to ID-ChecklistOn 7/8/08 at 11:44 > AM -0700, IETF Chair wrote: > >>The IESG solicits comments on this proposed update. The IESG plans >>to make a decision on this proposed text on 2008-07-17. Please send >>substantive comments to the ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by >>2008-07-16. Exceptionally, comments may be sent to [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>instead. In either case, please retain the beginning of the Subject >>line to allow automated sorting. > > Insert in the Introduction, before or at the beginning of "Notes:" > > ----- > This memo uses the terms "MUST", "REQUIRED", "SHOULD", and > "RECOMMENDED", similarly to the use of these terms in RFC 2119. In > particular, when they appear in ALL CAPS in this memo: > > -"MUST" or "REQUIRED" means that if you do not do this in your I-D, > the IESG will not accept the I-D for any review until the item is > complete. > > - "SHOULD" or "RECOMMENDED" means that there may be valid reasons > to ignore the item, but an explanation must be given, either in the > text of the document or as part of the submission to the IESG, as to > why the item is being ignored. Otherwise, the IESG may not accept the > I-D for review. > ----- > > This text both (a) puts draft authors on notice as to what the hard > requirements are in order to avoid late surprises, and (b) puts > reviewers of this memo on notice so that consensus can be reached on > what are or are not real showstoppers for IESG review. > > pr > -- > Pete Resnick <http://www.qualcomm.com/~presnick/> > Qualcomm Incorporated - Direct phone: (858)651-4478, Fax: (858)651-1102 > _______________________________________________ > Ietf mailing list > Ietf@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf > _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
