Hi Tom,
Noted. I'll add that and should have a new shepherding document out later
today.
Thanks,
Chris
On Thu, 30 Nov 2006, tom.petch wrote:
Chris
I would say that there was controversy about the use of ports and that that
should be reflected in the shepherding document. I would not be surprised to
see this
issue come up in IETF Last Call and it would be better to show that we had at
least considered it. Something along the lines of
There was also some controversy about the use of a dedicated port for this,
initial version of syslog over TLS; the consensus was that a dedicated port
should be requested and that there should be no indication of version with the
consequence that any future change to the protocol might require a different
port number.
Tom Petch
- Original Message -
From: Chris Lonvick [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, November 29, 2006 5:12 PM
Subject: [Syslog] Near Final Shepherding Document
fordraft-ietf-syslog-transport-tls-05.txt
Hi,
Please review this and the latest version of the document. Send in any
comments very soon as we would like to submit this to the IESG by Friday.
If I don't hear anything, then this will become the final shepherding
document.
Thanks,
Chris
===
Having passed a WG Last Call, draft-ietf-syslog-transport-tls-05.txt is
ready for AD review.
[Area] SECURITY
[WG] syslog
[I-D] draft-ietf-syslog-transport-tls-05.txt
[Qver] draft-ietf-proto-wgchair-doc-shepherding-08.txt
[Shep] Chris Lonvick clonvick at cisco.com
===
(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?
Chris Lonvick clonvick at cisco.com
Yes; I believe that the document is ready for publication.
===
(1.b) Has the document had adequate review both from key WG members
and from key non-WG members? Does the Document Shepherd have
any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that
have been performed?
Adequate review has occurred from WG members, and it has been reviewed
by others. The reviews of the WG Last Call for this document (-03
version) may be found here:
Bert Wijnen's review (not a member of the WG mailing list)
http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/syslog/current/msg01244.html
John Calcote's review
http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/syslog/current/msg01199.html
Other reviews of particular sections and concepts fill the WG mailing
list. Of note is Eric Rescorla's review (of -02)
http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/syslog/current/msg01100.html
The issues raised in these reviews have been discussed on the mailing
list and most of them were fixed in version -04. A very few minor issues
were also addressed from that which resulted in vresion -05. I am
satisfied about the level of review.
===
(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?
I have no concerns.
===
(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 WG has discussed those issues and has indicated
that it still wishes to advance the document, detail those
concerns here.
There are no concerns about the technical merit of the document.
===
(1.e) 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 is strong consensus to publish this document.
===
(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.)
No appeals have been threatened.
===
(1.g) Has the Document Shepherd personally verified that the
document satisfies all ID nits? (See
http://www.ietf.org/ID-Checklist.html 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?
Normative reference
