There are two parts to this task. First, the Shepherding WG Chair answers questions 1 to 9 below to give the Responsible Area Director insight into the working group process as applied to this draft. Note that while these questions may appear redundant in some cases, they are written to elicit information that the AD must be aware of (to this end, pointers to relevant entries in the WG archive will be helpful). The goal here is to inform the AD about any issues that may have come up in IETF meetings, on the mailing list, or in private communication that they should be aware of prior to IESG evaluation of the shepherded draft. Any significant issues mentioned in the questionnaire will probably lead to a follow-up discussion with the AD.

The second part of the task is to prepare the "Protocol Write-Up" which is used both for the ballot write-up for the IESG telechat and for the the IETF-wide protocol announcement. Item number 10 describes the elements of the write-up. Please see other protocol announcements in the IETF Announce archive for examples of such write-ups.

1. Have the chairs personally reviewed this version of the Internet Draft (ID), and in particular, do they believe this ID is ready to forward to the IESG for publication?
2. Has the document had adequate review from both key WG members and key non-WG members? Do you have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed?
3. Do you have concerns that the document needs more review from a particular (broader) perspective (e.g., security, operational complexity, someone familiar with AAA, etc.)?
4. Do you have any specific concerns/issues with this document that you believe the ADs and/or IESG should be aware of? For example, perhaps you are uncomfortable with certain parts of the document, or have concerns whether there really is a need for it. In any event, if your issues have been discussed in the WG and the WG has indicated it that it still wishes to advance the document, detail those concerns in the write-up.
5. How solid is the WG consensus behind this document? Does it represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others being silent, or does the WG as a whole understand and agree with it?
6. Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If so, please summarise the areas of conflict in separate email to the Responsible Area Director.
7. Have the chairs verified that the document adheres to all of the ID Checklist items ?
8. Is the document split into normative and informative references? Are there normative references to IDs, where the IDs are not also ready for advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state? (note here that the RFC editor will not publish an RFC with normative references to IDs, it will delay publication until all such IDs are also ready for publication as RFCs.)
9. What is the intended status of the document? (e.g., Proposed Standard, Informational?)
10. For Standards Track and BCP documents, the IESG approval announcement includes a write-up section with the following sections:
    • Technical Summary
    • Working Group Summary
    • Protocol Quality

    Please provide such a write-up. Recent examples can be found in the "protocol action" announcements for approved documents.

    Note:

    • The relevant information for the technical summary can frequently be found in the abstract and/or introduction of the document. If not, this may be an indication that there are deficiencies in the abstract or introduction.
    • For the Working Group Summary: Was there anything in WG process that is worth noting? For example, was there controversy about particular points, decisions where consensus was particularly rough, etc.
    • For the protocol quality, useful information includes:
    • Are there existing implementations of the protocol?
    • Have a significant number of vendors indicated they plan to implement the specification?
    • Are there any reviewers that merit special mention as having done a thorough review (i.e., that resulted in important changes or a conclusion that the document had no substantive issues)?

The questionnaire and write-up is sent to the ADs and iesg-secretary@ietf.org with a request to publish the document. The questionnaire and write-up, minus any discussion of possible appeals, is also sent to the working group mailing list. The publication request SHOULD also indicate which chair will be shepherding the document (this will be entered into the ID Tracker ). In addition to making life easier for the ADs, this lets the IETF chair know where to send Gen-ART ] reviews.