headers
Brian E Carpenter | 2 Aug 2006 10:21
Picon
Favicon

[Fwd: Document Action: 'Requirements for IETF Technical Publication Service' to Informational RFC]


-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Document Action: 'Requirements for IETF Technical Publication  Service' to Informational RFC
Date: Tue, 01 Aug 2006 15:20:14 -0400
From: The IESG <iesg-secretary <at> ietf.org>
To: IETF-Announce <ietf-announce <at> ietf.org>
CC: Internet Architecture Board <iab <at> iab.org>,   RFC Editor <rfc-editor <at> rfc-editor.org>

The IESG has approved the following document:

- 'Requirements for IETF Technical Publication Service '
    <draft-mankin-pub-req-11.txt> as an Informational RFC

This document has been reviewed in the IETF but is not the product of an
IETF Working Group.

The IESG contact person is Brian Carpenter.

A URL of this Internet-Draft is:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-mankin-pub-req-11.txt

Technical Summary

    The work of the IETF is to discuss, develop, and disseminate
    technical specifications to support the Internet's operation.
    Technical publication is the process by which that output is
    disseminated to the community at large. As such, it is important to
    understand the requirements on the publication process.

BOF Summary
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Stephen Hayes (PL/EUS | 29 Jul 2006 01:08
Picon
Favicon

FW: New Version Notification - draft-mankin-pub-req-11.txt

FYI,

New version of mankin-pub-req now available.  This addresses the remaining discuss comments and the
additional requirement mentioned previously by Allison.

Stephen

Change Log:
mankin-pub-req-10 -> mankin-pub-req-11

1.	Section 3.1 (pre-approval editing) was updated to make it clearer that early copy editing is not
currently part of the IETF standards process and the IETF must still make a decision as to whether it will
become part of the process.

2.	Sections 2.1, 3.3, and 3.7 cleaned up the wording to remove the ambiguity about who the document
shepherd was and who had the authority to approve changes.

3.	As Allison indicated in a previous mail: a new section (3.22) and requirement was added to capture the
need for a liaison from the technical publisher to the IESG.


-----Original Message-----
From: ID Tracker [mailto:internet-drafts-reply <at> ietf.org]
Sent: Friday, July 28, 2006 2:50 PM
To: mankin <at> psg.com; Stephen Hayes (PL/EUS); leslie <at> thinkingcat.com;
brc <at> zurich.ibm.com; lisa <at> osafoundation.org; fluffy <at> cisco.com
Subject: New Version Notification - draft-mankin-pub-req-11.txt 


New version (-11) has been submitted for draft-mankin-pub-req-11.txt.
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 1 comment |
headers
Allison Mankin | 28 Jul 2006 05:09

New requirement surfaced in RFP review - liaison

During the RFP review, it was found that we missed reporting a
requirement that is simply standard operating procedure, the
liaison of the technical editor with the IESG.  Since the
RFP is meant to basically match draft-mankin-pub-req, we
were requested to add this to our document for completeness.

Here is the new requirement which will be going into version 11.
Version 11 will also be resolving a few Discusses.  Stephen will
explain those small changes as he submits the update.

3.22 Liaison and Communication 

 Task Description:  It is very valuable for the technical publisher for
 an organization to have good information and communication about the
 work streams which will result in publication streams.  In order to
 ensure a wide communication channel to the work, the technical
 publisher holds a liaison position on the IESG, where there can be
 valuable give-and-take about matters concerning the IETF standards
 stream.  

 Derived Requirements:

 o Req-LIAISON-1 - Through a liaison participant, the technical publisher 
   should take part in IESG formal meetings, IESG face-to-face activities 
   at IETF, and other activities such as retreats.  

Allison
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Stephen Hayes (PL/EUS | 12 Jul 2006 21:39
Picon
Favicon

draft-mankin-pub-req-10

A new version of the technical publisher requirements is available: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-mankin-pub-req-10.txt

This version hopefully resolves a few belated last call comments as well as the IESG discusses.

Stephen Hayes

The changes from version 09->10 are:

1. Changes to section 1 (intro):
	-	"ISD" replaced by "otherwise" 
	-	It was indicated this document will be used in the preparation of future contracts
	-	Clarified that the current technical publisher is the RFC Editor

2. Changes to section 2 (scope)
	-	Genericized "RFC streams" to "publication streams"
	-	Added the IETF secretariat and draft publication, status tracking into the lifecycle diagram

3. Clarified in section 3.1 that the publisher should be capable of doing pre-approval review, not that it
is currently expected to.  Also removed the bias of pre -vs- post-approval editing in sections 3.1 and 3.3.

4. Clarified in section 3.2 that the publisher is not expected to extend the lifetime of a draft that is in the
publication process.

5. Clarified in section 3.4 that the publisher should only hold up publication for normative references.

6. Clarified in section 3.5 that the publisher should only do a syntactic review of formal language sections.

7. Clarified in section 3.7 (Req-POSTCORR-2) that the responsible party is designated by the IESG and is
sometimes referred to as the document shepherd who is currently an AD.
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 2 comments |
headers
Ray Pelletier | 10 Jul 2006 14:35
Favicon

RFC Editor SOW Review

All;

The IAOC intends to promulgate an RFP for the RFC Editor function not 
later than 31 July 2006.  To that end we seek comments on the Statement 
of Work located at:
http://koi.uoregon.edu/~iaoc/

This Statement of Work is a draft and will be updated to conform to the 
final form of draft-mankin-pub-req for the Request for Proposal.  
Comments on this Statement of Work should be submitted by 17 July to 
ensure consideration before promulgation.

Thanks for your assistance.

Regards
Ray Pelletier
IETF Administrative Director

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf <at> ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Elwyn Davies | 12 Jun 2006 19:19

Additional comment on draft-mankin-pub-req-08

I appreciate that the last call is strictly over, but one extra point 
came to mind when considering draft-iab-rfc-editor-00.

The requirements in draft-mankin split into two parts:
- Those that are specific to the IETF document 'stream' - most;y the 
'front end' of the process
- Those that apply mainly to the back end of the process and are 
relevant to any documents that are published by the RFC Editor

For convenience when specifying requirements for IAB and IRTF documents 
etc it would be helpful if the two types of requirements were split into 
separate sections for easier cross referencing.

I have suggested the sections in section 3 which appear to apply 
specifically to the IETF stream (marked S in the list below), whereas 
the others are generic (marked G).  A small amount of swapping of 
section order would give the required result, I believe:

S   1. Pre-approval review or editing

G   2. Preliminary specification availability

S   3. Post-approval editorial cleanup

G   4. Validation of references

G   5. Validation of formal languages

G?   6. Insertion of parameter values
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Stephen Hayes (TX/EUS | 26 May 2006 02:48
Picon
Favicon

RE: Editorial notes on draft-mankin-pub-req-08.txt

Paul Hoffman wrote
>     o  Req-PREEDIT-1: The IETF technical publisher should perform an
>        editorial review of documents before WG last call and provide
>        feedback to the authors to improve quality of the 
> documents.  This
>        review should strive to maintain consistency in appearance with
>        previously published documents.
> The phrase "should perform" is quite different than "should support". 
> It seems that the consensus was that this should be done, so "should 
> perform" is correct.

I agree, the current wording is too strong.  Even if IETF decides to go down the pre-approval review route, it
is not clear what documents you would use it on.  It is certainly a stretch to assume all WG docs would be
pre-approved.  It is also unclear that it is only WG docs that could have pre-approval review.  I will change
the wording to indicate that is it something the technical publisher should do when requested by
appropriate technical representatives.
> 
> --Paul Hoffman, Director
> --VPN Consortium
>
Permalink | Reply | 2 comments |
headers
Stephen Hayes (TX/EUS | 26 May 2006 02:44
Picon
Favicon

RE: Post-edit tracking

Thanks for catching these errors.  I'll change the musts to should.  Consistency is hard.

Stephen

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Paul Hoffman [mailto:paul.hoffman <at> vpnc.org]
> Sent: Thursday, May 25, 2006 10:22 AM
> To: Stephen Hayes (TX/EUS); techspec <at> ietf.org
> Subject: RE: [Techspec] Post-edit tracking
> 
> 
> At 11:41 PM -0500 5/24/06, Stephen Hayes (TX/EUS) wrote:
> >All the requirements use the "should" language.  It is hard to 
> >actually mandate anything since what the publisher will do is 
> >ultimately determined by the contract.
> 
> Some of the requirements still say "must". It's fine to demote them, 
> but if you don't, this one should be promoted to "must".
> 
>     o  Req-POSTEDIT-2 - All changes made to post-approval documents
>        should be tracked and the changes must be signed off on by the
>        appropriate technical representatives as defined in the IETF
>        processes.
> 
>     o  Req-INDEX-3 - Meta information associated with a published
>        document must be stored and updated as its status changes.
> 
>     o  Req-INDEX-4 - The archive must be sufficiently secure 
> to prevent
>        the modification of published documents by external parties.
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 2 comments |
headers
Bob Braden | 25 May 2006 18:35
Picon
Favicon

Re: RFC Author Count and IPR


Todd Glassey wrote:

  *> 
  *> This is a very bad thing, since each of those authors has legal control over
  *> their portions of the work or derivatives of their contribution within the
  *> work itself. I.e. they are all legal signatories to any conveyance of
  *> copyrights or derivative use rights including implementaiton rights.
  *> 

This is all very puzzling.  Suppose that document editor X in a WG
receives a paragraph that has been crafted by another WG member Y.
Also, suppose that in fitting the paragraph into the document, X
changes the text a bit (or a lot).  Now, does Y retain "legal
control" (presumably you mean copyright) over the paragraph as
it finally appears in the finished document?

Bob Braden
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Lucy E. Lynch | 25 May 2006 18:19
Favicon

Re: RFC Author Count and IPR

On Thu, 25 May 2006, bmanning <at> vacation.karoshi.com wrote:

> On Thu, May 25, 2006 at 06:42:06AM -0700, Lucy E. Lynch wrote:
>> On Thu, 25 May 2006, Harald Alvestrand wrote:
>>
>>> Lucy E. Lynch wrote:
>>>> Let me try re-stating my question. Is there a one-to-one relationship
>>>> between the listed authors on an IETF document and ownership of the
>>>> given document's Intellectual Property?
>>> I can answer that one...
>>>
>>> No.
>>
>>
>> Thank you!
>>
>> Lucy E. Lynch 				Academic User Services
>
> 	not knowing Harolds legal background or current standing w/
> 	the ABA, (or EU equivalent) I think that Bob's recommendation
> 	on getting actual legal advice on your question puts you and
> 	the organziation represented (IETF) on much better grounding
> 	than a simple; "I can answer that... no" on an email list.
>
> 	just my (uninformed) opinion.

Bill -

Understood, as I say, I'm just trying to get a handle the range of 
community opinion(s) and the scope of the problem. This issue
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Stephen Hayes (TX/EUS | 25 May 2006 14:23
Picon
Favicon

FW: Gen-art review of draft-mankin-pub-req-08.txt

Copied to this list with Elwyn's permission.

Stephen Hayes

-----Original Message-----
From: Elwyn Davies [mailto:elwynd <at> dial.pipex.com]
Sent: Thursday, May 25, 2006 7:13 AM
To: Stephen Hayes (TX/EUS)
Cc: General Area Review Team; Mary Barnes; Allison Mankin
Subject: Re: Gen-art review of draft-mankin-pub-req-08.txt

Some thoughts on your responses in line.

Given that there is at least one matter of discussion and opinion, you 
are welcome to copy this to the techspec list or I can raise the issue 
separately.

/Elwyn

Stephen Hayes (TX/EUS) wrote:
> Hi Elwyn,
>
> Thanks for reviewing the document.  My responses are inline:
>
> Stephen
>
>   
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Elwyn Davies [mailto:elwynd <at> dial.pipex.com]
>> Sent: Tuesday, May 23, 2006 12:43 PM
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |

Gmane