Skip to content

Commit 5d22df9

Browse files
levkowetzlevkowetz
committed
Added templates missing from release 4.44.
 - Legacy-Id: 5664
1 parent f159416 commit 5d22df9

4 files changed

Lines changed: 374 additions & 0 deletions

File tree

‎ietf/templates/doc/shepherd_writeup.txt‎

Lines changed: 263 additions & 0 deletions
Original file line numberDiff line numberDiff line change
@@ -0,0 +1,263 @@
1+
{% if doc.stream %}{% if doc.stream.slug == 'ietf' %}{% if doc.group.type.slug == 'individ' %}As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document
2+
Shepherd Write-Up.
3+
4+
Changes are expected over time. This version is dated 24 February 2012.
5+
6+
(1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard,
7+
Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? Why
8+
is this the proper type of RFC? Is this type of RFC indicated in the
9+
title page header?
10+
11+
(2) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document Announcement
12+
Write-Up. Please provide such a Document Announcement Write-Up. Recent
13+
examples can be found in the "Action" announcements for approved
14+
documents. The approval announcement contains the following sections:
15+
16+
Technical Summary
17+
18+
Relevant content can frequently be found in the abstract
19+
and/or introduction of the document. If not, this may be
20+
an indication that there are deficiencies in the abstract
21+
or introduction.
22+
23+
Working Group Summary
24+
25+
Was the document considered in any WG, and if so, why was
26+
it not adopted as a work item there? Was there controversy
27+
about particular points that caused the WG to not adopt the
28+
document?
29+
30+
Document Quality
31+
32+
Are there existing implementations of the protocol? Have a
33+
significant number of vendors indicated their plan to
34+
implement the specification? Are there any reviewers that
35+
merit special mention as having done a thorough review,
36+
e.g., one that resulted in important changes or a
37+
conclusion that the document had no substantive issues? If
38+
there was a MIB Doctor, Media Type or other expert review,
39+
what was its course (briefly)? In the case of a Media Type
40+
review, on what date was the request posted?
41+
42+
Personnel
43+
44+
Who is the Document Shepherd? Who is the Responsible Area
45+
Director?
46+
47+
(3) Briefly describe the review of this document that was performed by
48+
the Document Shepherd. If this version of the document is not ready
49+
for publication, please explain why the document is being forwarded to
50+
the IESG.
51+
52+
(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or
53+
breadth of the reviews that have been performed?
54+
55+
(5) Do portions of the document need review from a particular or from
56+
broader perspective, e.g., security, operational complexity, AAA, DNS,
57+
DHCP, XML, or internationalization? If so, describe the review that
58+
took place.
59+
60+
(6) Describe any specific concerns or issues that the Document Shepherd
61+
has with this document that the Responsible Area Director and/or the
62+
IESG should be aware of? For example, perhaps he or she is uncomfortable
63+
with certain parts of the document, or has concerns whether there really
64+
is a need for it. In any event, if the interested community has
65+
discussed those issues and has indicated that it still wishes to advance
66+
the document, detail those concerns here.
67+
68+
(7) Has each author confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR
69+
disclosures required for full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78
70+
and BCP 79 have already been filed. If not, explain why.
71+
72+
(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document?
73+
If so, summarize any discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR
74+
disclosures.
75+
76+
(9) How solid is the consensus of the interested community behind this
77+
document? Does it represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals,
78+
with others being silent, or does the interested community as a whole
79+
understand and agree with it?
80+
81+
(10) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme
82+
discontent? If so, please summarise the areas of conflict in separate
83+
email messages to the Responsible Area Director. (It should be in a
84+
separate email because this questionnaire is publicly available.)
85+
86+
(11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this
87+
document. (See http://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts
88+
Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be
89+
thorough.
90+
91+
(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review
92+
criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.
93+
94+
(13) Have all references within this document been identified as
95+
either normative or informative?
96+
97+
(14) Are there normative references to documents that are not ready for
98+
advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state? If such normative
99+
references exist, what is the plan for their completion?
100+
101+
(15) Are there downward normative references references (see RFC 3967)?
102+
If so, list these downward references to support the Area Director in
103+
the Last Call procedure.
104+
105+
(16) Will publication of this document change the status of any existing
106+
RFCs? Are those RFCs listed on the title page header, listed in the
107+
abstract, and discussed in the introduction? If the RFCs are not listed
108+
in the Abstract and Introduction, explain why, and point to the part of
109+
the document where the relationship of this document to the other RFCs
110+
is discussed. If this information is not in the document, explain why
111+
the interested community considers it unnecessary.
112+
113+
(17) Describe the Document Shepherd's review of the IANA considerations
114+
section, especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the
115+
document. Confirm that all protocol extensions that the document makes
116+
are associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries.
117+
Confirm that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly
118+
identified. Confirm that newly created IANA registries include a
119+
detailed specification of the initial contents for the registry, that
120+
allocations procedures for future registrations are defined, and a
121+
reasonable name for the new registry has been suggested (see RFC 5226).
122+
123+
(18) List any new IANA registries that require Expert Review for future
124+
allocations. Provide any public guidance that the IESG would find
125+
useful in selecting the IANA Experts for these new registries.
126+
127+
(19) Describe reviews and automated checks performed by to validate
128+
sections of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code,
129+
BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc.
130+
{% else %}As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document
131+
Shepherd Write-Up.
132+
133+
Changes are expected over time. This version is dated 24 February 2012.
134+
135+
(1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard,
136+
Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? Why
137+
is this the proper type of RFC? Is this type of RFC indicated in the
138+
title page header?
139+
140+
(2) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document Announcement
141+
Write-Up. Please provide such a Document Announcement Write-Up. Recent
142+
examples can be found in the "Action" announcements for approved
143+
documents. The approval announcement contains the following sections:
144+
145+
Technical Summary
146+
147+
Relevant content can frequently be found in the abstract
148+
and/or introduction of the document. If not, this may be
149+
an indication that there are deficiencies in the abstract
150+
or introduction.
151+
152+
Working Group Summary
153+
154+
Was there anything in WG process that is worth noting? For
155+
example, was there controversy about particular points or
156+
were there decisions where the consensus was particularly
157+
rough?
158+
159+
Document Quality
160+
161+
Are there existing implementations of the protocol? Have a
162+
significant number of vendors indicated their plan to
163+
implement the specification? Are there any reviewers that
164+
merit special mention as having done a thorough review,
165+
e.g., one that resulted in important changes or a
166+
conclusion that the document had no substantive issues? If
167+
there was a MIB Doctor, Media Type or other expert review,
168+
what was its course (briefly)? In the case of a Media Type
169+
review, on what date was the request posted?
170+
171+
Personnel
172+
173+
Who is the Document Shepherd? Who is the Responsible Area
174+
Director?
175+
176+
(3) Briefly describe the review of this document that was performed by
177+
the Document Shepherd. If this version of the document is not ready
178+
for publication, please explain why the document is being forwarded to
179+
the IESG.
180+
181+
(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or
182+
breadth of the reviews that have been performed?
183+
184+
185+
186+
(5) Do portions of the document need review from a particular or from
187+
broader perspective, e.g., security, operational complexity, AAA, DNS,
188+
DHCP, XML, or internationalization? If so, describe the review that
189+
took place.
190+
191+
(6) Describe any specific concerns or issues that the Document Shepherd
192+
has with this document that the Responsible Area Director and/or the
193+
IESG should be aware of? For example, perhaps he or she is uncomfortable
194+
with certain parts of the document, or has concerns whether there really
195+
is a need for it. In any event, if the WG has discussed those issues and
196+
has indicated that it still wishes to advance the document, detail those
197+
concerns here.
198+
199+
(7) Has each author confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR
200+
disclosures required for full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78
201+
and BCP 79 have already been filed. If not, explain why.
202+
203+
(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document?
204+
If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR
205+
disclosures.
206+
207+
(9) How solid is the WG consensus behind this document? Does it
208+
represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others
209+
being silent, or does the WG as a whole understand and agree with it?
210+
211+
(10) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme
212+
discontent? If so, please summarise the areas of conflict in separate
213+
email messages to the Responsible Area Director. (It should be in a
214+
separate email because this questionnaire is publicly available.)
215+
216+
(11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this
217+
document. (See http://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts
218+
Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be
219+
thorough.
220+
221+
(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review
222+
criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.
223+
224+
(13) Have all references within this document been identified as
225+
either normative or informative?
226+
227+
(14) Are there normative references to documents that are not ready for
228+
advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state? If such normative
229+
references exist, what is the plan for their completion?
230+
231+
(15) Are there downward normative references references (see RFC 3967)?
232+
If so, list these downward references to support the Area Director in
233+
the Last Call procedure.
234+
235+
(16) Will publication of this document change the status of any
236+
existing RFCs? Are those RFCs listed on the title page header, listed
237+
in the abstract, and discussed in the introduction? If the RFCs are not
238+
listed in the Abstract and Introduction, explain why, and point to the
239+
part of the document where the relationship of this document to the
240+
other RFCs is discussed. If this information is not in the document,
241+
explain why the WG considers it unnecessary.
242+
243+
244+
(17) Describe the Document Shepherd's review of the IANA considerations
245+
section, especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the
246+
document. Confirm that all protocol extensions that the document makes
247+
are associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries.
248+
Confirm that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly
249+
identified. Confirm that newly created IANA registries include a
250+
detailed specification of the initial contents for the registry, that
251+
allocations procedures for future registrations are defined, and a
252+
reasonable name for the new registry has been suggested (see RFC 5226).
253+
254+
(18) List any new IANA registries that require Expert Review for future
255+
allocations. Provide any public guidance that the IESG would find
256+
useful in selecting the IANA Experts for these new registries.
257+
258+
(19) Describe reviews and automated checks performed by the Document
259+
Shepherd to validate sections of the document written in a formal
260+
language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc.
261+
{% endif %}{% else %}There is no default template for the {{d.stream}} stream
262+
{% endif %}{% else %}There is no stream set for this document (thus, no default template)
263+
{% endif %}

‎ietf/templates/idrfc/change_shepherd.html‎

Lines changed: 46 additions & 0 deletions
Original file line numberDiff line numberDiff line change
@@ -0,0 +1,46 @@
1+
{% extends "base.html" %}
2+
3+
{% block morecss %}
4+
.warning {
5+
font-weight: bold;
6+
color: #a00;
7+
}
8+
{% endblock %}
9+
10+
{% block title %}
11+
Change the document shepherd for {{ doc.name }}-{{ doc.rev }}
12+
{% endblock %}
13+
14+
{% block pagehead %}
15+
<link rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" href="/css/token-input.css"></link>
16+
{% endblock %}
17+
18+
{% block content %}
19+
<h1>Change the document shepherd for {{ doc.name }}-{{ doc.rev }}</h1>
20+
21+
<form class="edit-info" action="" enctype="multipart/form-data" method="POST">
22+
<table>
23+
{% for field in form.visible_fields %}
24+
<tr>
25+
<th>{{ field.label_tag }}:</th>
26+
<td>
27+
{{ field }}
28+
{% if field.help_text %}<div class="help">{{ field.help_text }}</div>{% endif %}
29+
{{ field.errors }}
30+
</td>
31+
</tr>
32+
{% endfor %}
33+
<tr>
34+
<td></td>
35+
<td class="actions">
36+
<a href="{% url doc_view name=doc.name %}">Back</a>
37+
<input type="submit" value="Submit"/>
38+
</td>
39+
</tr>
40+
</table>
41+
</form>
42+
{% endblock %}
43+
{% block content_end %}
44+
<script type="text/javascript" src="/js/lib/jquery.tokeninput.js"></script>
45+
<script type="text/javascript" src="/js/emails-field.js"></script>
46+
{% endblock %}

‎ietf/templates/idrfc/change_shepherd_writeup.html‎

Lines changed: 40 additions & 0 deletions
Original file line numberDiff line numberDiff line change
@@ -0,0 +1,40 @@
1+
{% extends "base.html" %}
2+
3+
{% block morecss %}
4+
form #id_content {
5+
width: 40em;
6+
height: 450px;
7+
}
8+
{% endblock %}
9+
10+
{% block title %}
11+
Edit shepherd writeup for {{ doc.canonical_name }}-{{ doc.rev }}
12+
{% endblock %}
13+
14+
{% block content %}
15+
<h1>Edit shepherd writeup for {{ doc.canonical_name }}-{{ doc.rev }}</h1>
16+
17+
<form class="edit-info" action="" enctype="multipart/form-data" method="POST">
18+
<table>
19+
{% for field in form.visible_fields %}
20+
<tr>
21+
<th>{{ field.label_tag }}:</th>
22+
<td>
23+
{{ field }}
24+
{% if field.help_text %}<div class="help">{{ field.help_text }}</div>{% endif %}
25+
{{ field.errors }}
26+
</td>
27+
</tr>
28+
{% endfor %}
29+
<tr>
30+
<td></td>
31+
<td class="actions">
32+
<a href="{% url doc_view name=doc.canonical_name %}">Back</a>
33+
<input type="submit" name="reset_text" value="Reset to Template Text"/>
34+
<input type="submit" name="submit_response" value="Submit"/>
35+
</td>
36+
</tr>
37+
</table>
38+
</form>
39+
40+
{% endblock %}

‎ietf/templates/idrfc/shepherd_writeup.html‎

Lines changed: 25 additions & 0 deletions
Original file line numberDiff line numberDiff line change
@@ -0,0 +1,25 @@
1+
{% extends "base.html" %}
2+
3+
{% block morecss %}
4+
form #id_content {
5+
width: 40em;
6+
height: 450px;
7+
}
8+
{% endblock %}
9+
10+
{% block title %}
11+
Shepherd writeup for {{ doc.canonical_name }}-{{ doc.rev }}
12+
{% endblock %}
13+
14+
{% block content %}
15+
<h1>Shepherd writeup for {{ doc.canonical_name }}-{{ doc.rev }}</h1>
16+
17+
<pre style="border:1px solid black;padding:5px;">{{writeup}}</pre>
18+
19+
<a href="{% url doc_view name=doc.name %}">Back</a>
20+
21+
{% if can_edit %}
22+
<span id="doc_edit_shepherd_writeup" class="yui-button yui-link-button" style="margin-left:2px;">{% url doc_edit_shepherd_writeup name=doc.name as doc_edit_url %}{% if doc_edit_url %}<span class="first-child"><a href="{{doc_edit_url}}">Edit</a></span>{% endif %}</span>
23+
{% endif %}
24+
25+
{% endblock %}

0 commit comments

Comments
 (0)