[Iccrg] Submitting draft-irtf-iccrg-cc-rfcs-01 for IRSG review

[Michael Welzl]

Dear all,

In conformance with draft-irtf-rfcs-00, Wes and I would like
to submit draft-irtf-iccrg-cc-rfcs-01 (yep, sorry, almost the
same name - don't confuse the two!) for IRSG review:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-irtf-iccrg-cc-rfcs-01.txt

draft-irtf-rfcs-00 states that a document should have
a paragraph in the first section describing the level of
support for the document and the breadth of review for the
document.

Sorry, this document doesn't have that; the feedback was so little
that I decided to submit this without an update and simply
state the review situation in this email instead (I hope that's ok):

The RG was given a 2 week deadline to comment, and, as you
can see here:
http://oakham.cs.ucl.ac.uk/pipermail/iccrg/2007-April/thread.html
the only feedback was:
http://oakham.cs.ucl.ac.uk/pipermail/iccrg/2007-April/000215.html
and we will definitely take the (very minor) issues that were raised
into account for the next update.

(...plus there was a direct email, but Wes could satisfactorily
answer the question that was asked).

The previous version received some feedback, which we addressed -
Wes put a diff online at:
http://roland.grc.nasa.gov/~weddy/shared/iccrg/cc-rfcs-00-01-diff.html

Cheers,
Michael

--

PS: here's the relevant text for IRSG review from Aaron's
draft-irtf-iccrg document:

   A (firm) eight-week IRSG review period follows after which a poll is
   taken.  Reviews should be similar to that for a conference paper.
   Votes can be:

   o  'ready to publish' -- requires a thorough read and reasonably
      detailed review

   o  'not ready to publish' -- requires a thorough read, reasonably
      detailed review, and actionable comments.

   o  'no objection' -- I don't object if this document goes forward;
      I've read the document (perhaps quickly); I have some small
      comments which are not show stoppers; I don't have great expertise
      in the area.

   o  'request more time to review' -- a commitment to to provide a
      thorough review in a specified period of time.

   Reviews should be written to be public.  In particular, they should
   be sent to the submitted RG mailing list.  (We may need a tracker of
   some sort to collect reviews.)

   At least two other IRSG members (besides the one sponsoring the
   document) need to vote 'ready to publish' for the document to move
   forward.  Any vote of 'not ready to publish' will hold a document's
   progress until the comments are addressed.  The IRTF chair may choose
   to override 'not ready to publish' holds that, in the opinion of the
   chair, have received an adequate response.


I hope I did everything right!  :)