Subject: [Techspec] draft-mankin-pub-req-10

From: "Stephen Hayes \(PL/EUS\)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2006 16:39:59 -0300

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.

8. Cleaned up in section 3.9 the formats currently accepted by and produced by the RFC editor (text has been reviewed by the RFC editor).  Also clarified that it is not the publisher's responsibility to edit supplemental files.

9. Added to sections 3.11 and 3.16 that it was desirable that the interface to the status info and the index be documented to facilitate tool development (indicated as desirable so not a hard requirement).

10. In section 3.13, indicated that the IAB can also put a document on hold in case of appeal.

11. Clarified in section 3.15 that the process for reviewing, updating, and approving errata (for IETF documents) is a process issue to be defined by the IETF.

12. In section 3.16, removed requirement Req-INDEX-7 (to purge a document).  Performing such an action would be due to a legal mandate.  The publisher is expected to comply with legal edicts as much as possible in any case and it is the contract that should enforce this behaviour (a requirement to comply with applicable laws seems unnecessary).  Such a hypothetical mandate need not, however, drive solutions for archiving documents.

13. More editorial cleanup.

_______________________________________________
Techspec mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/techspec