David: Part of it is that we reviewed a lot of the syslog-protocol before the last WGLC, and it did not change much since. I think we just added the <pri> header, right?
So, I have not given this version a close review because I reviewed much of the same content for 2 years up to the last WGLC. If there were significant other changes since the last WGLC, I'd like to know. If there were a lot of minor changes, I'd appreciate a document with tracked changes since last WGLC. Word Compare feature may help with that. Thanks, Anton. > -----Original Message----- > From: David Harrington [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Friday, September 08, 2006 1:23 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: [Syslog] WGLC and document advancement > > Hi, > > There are good things and bad things that come with having a > new WG co-chair. > I think I have helped the WG by driving the completion of milestones. > That's the good part. > The bad part is I bring my own opinions of what adequate review means. > > The IETF has started using a new process, called document > shepherding, for the advancement of documents to the > standards-track. The chairs are given much more > responsibility and authority to decide whether documents are > ready for advancement. They are expected to write up their > analyses of WG issues, consensus, and degree of review of the > documents being submitted, and these analyses will be > reviewed at every step of the process after this point, as > the members of the IESG try to determine whether the document > really is ready for advancment to standards-track. You can > see the details they expect us to provide by reading > draft-ietf-proto-wgchair-doc-shepherding-07 (which has been > expanded quite a bit from the -05- draft used during your > earlier WGLCs). > > I have shepherded a number of documents through the process, > and I know how difficult it can be to get documents through > the process, and how much the documents can be delayed during > the standards-approval process if they are not really ready > for submission to that process. > > I am concerned that the documents have not gotten adequate > review during WGLC. There have been very few comments made, > and I would like to see more reviews done by the members of > the WG for each of these documents. > > If you have problems with the documents, speak up now, so the > chairs can be sure your concerns are recognized and have been > addressed. > > If you have read the document, and found no important > problems and have no significant objections to the document, > and belive it is ready to be submitted to the advancement > process, please send a note to the WG saying so. > > David Harrington > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > _______________________________________________ > Syslog mailing list > [email protected] > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/syslog > _______________________________________________ Syslog mailing list [email protected] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/syslog
