Subject: [TOOLS-DEVELOPMENT] Fwd: Checklist for IDs submitted for RFC publication

From: Alvaro Retana <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2018 17:08:44 -0600

Hi!

If I understand correctly, the ID Checklist [1] was originally (?) used to
build id-nits.  Can we safely assume that id-nits covers what is in the
Checklist?  I’m assuming that the tool goes beyond the Checklist.

I’m asking because of the e-mail below: the Shepherd Writeup template
points at both id-nits and the Checklist…which is redundant at best, and
confusing at worst given that the Checklist seems to be outdated.  It seems
to me that we don’t need both.

Thanks!

Alvaro.

[1] https://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist.html

On February 6, 2018 at 5:14:22 PM, A. Jean Mahoney ([email-masked])
wrote:

Hi IESG,

I consider myself a newbie Doc Shepherd so I carefully go through the
Document Shepherd Write-Up template (current dated 24 February 2012).
The template points to:

https://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist.html

which has a new URL:

https://www.ietf.org/standards/ids/checklist/ (same content though)

And this Checklist for Internet-Drafts has experienced a lot of link rot.

Below are the nits. However, I think that the checklist could use a more
thorough scrubbing than just updating links. For instance, the sections
that cover IPR, copyright and boilerplate are dangerously stale.

Section 1. Introduction

The link to idnits is still good, but Datatracker now has a idnits
button on the draft's page.

XML2RFC RFC 2629 is obsoleted by 7749 obsoleted by 7991.

Section 2.1 Formatting

7. Lots of obsolete RFCs:
- RFC 3978 -> RFC 5378
- RFC 8179 -> RFC 8179
- RFC 3667 -> RFC 3978 -> RFC 5378
- RFC 3668 -> RFC 3979 -> RFC 8179

9. Has disappeared but was not noted in the Change Log. It used to say,
"Use network byte order in diagrams, see section 5.2 in
http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc-style-guide/rfc-style-manual-08.txt" (link
404s).

Section 2.2 Required sections - all I-Ds

1. Lots of obsolete RFCs. Would be better to point to where good
boilerplate can be found (RFC 7322, RFC 7841, and
http://trustee.ietf.org/trust-legal-provisions.html).
- RFC 3978 -> RFC 5378
- RFC 3979 -> RFC 8179
- RFC 3667 -> RFC 3978 -> RFC 5378
- RFC 3668 -> RFC 3979 -> RFC 8179

2. http://www.rfc-editor.org/policy ->
http://www.rfc-editor.org/styleguide

7.C RFC 5226 -> RFC 8126

8. http://www.rfc-editor.org/policy ->
http://www.rfc-editor.org/styleguide

10 - 12. All the pointers are obsolete. Maybe point to RFC 7322, RFC
7841, and http://trustee.ietf.org/trust-legal-provisions.html.

Section 3. Content Issues

1.C. link 404s, point to RFC 7322?

2. "Security Guidelines for MIB Modules" 404s.

4. RFC 3979 -> RFC 8179, but fixing the reference is insufficient.

5. The link is still good, but is there anything newer that can be
pointed to?

6.A. RFC 3330 -> RFC 5735 -> RFC 6890

6.C link for example UK phone numbers 404s.

6.D link for example US phone numbers 404s.

Section 4. Protocol Issues

4. RFC 3454 -> RFC 7564 -> RFC 8264

Change Log

Last update listed is May 12, 2009, but sometime between May 2017 and
Feb 2018, Section 2.1 step 9 disappeared.

Thanks!

Jean

---

From: Ben Campbell <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2018 17:39:41 -0600

Hi,

I don’t think IDNits covers everything in the checklist. It covers things that are reasonable to mechanically verify, but there are things in the checklist that really need a human to check. For example, that any IPR is properly disclosed, the security considerations section is meaningful, etc.

I agree the checklist needs a scrub.

Thanks!

Ben.

> On Feb 12, 2018, at 5:08 PM, Alvaro Retana <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> Hi!
> 
> If I understand correctly, the ID Checklist [1] was originally (?) used to build id-nits.  Can we safely assume that id-nits covers what is in the Checklist?  I’m assuming that the tool goes beyond the Checklist.
> 
> I’m asking because of the e-mail below: the Shepherd Writeup template points at both id-nits and the Checklist…which is redundant at best, and confusing at worst given that the Checklist seems to be outdated.  It seems to me that we don’t need both.
> 
> Thanks!
> 
> Alvaro.
> 
> 
> On February 6, 2018 at 5:14:22 PM, A. Jean Mahoney ([email-masked]) wrote:
> 
>> Hi IESG,
>> 
> _______________________________________________
> TOOLS-DEVELOPMENT mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tools-development