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

[Gorry Fairhurst]

IMHO, this document does not look ready to publish. I am also struggling 
a little to see which part of the Charter this addresses, and the 
intended purpose of this document, so I suspect the content or abstract, 
or both need work.

It currently seems to be a summary of the various RFCs produced by IETF 
TSV area. I suggest at least the tsvwg chairs need to review this (and I 
missed this stage - probably through overload, it was certainly not by 
intention).

Please do forgive (and correct me) if I am misunderstanding the IRTF 
process ...

Best wishes,

Gorry


Michael Welzl wrote:

>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!  :)
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>Iccrg mailing list
>Iccrg at cs.ucl.ac.uk
>http://oakham.cs.ucl.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/iccrg
>
>
>  
>