altf4arnold/datatracker
1
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull requests Actions 3 Packages Projects Releases Wiki Activity

fix: Update document shepherd writeup template based on community review (#4042)

Browse source 
* fix: Update document shepherd writeup template based on community review

* Point to the new "content guidelines" page @JayDaley added

* Suggestion from Jane Coffin

* Also extend this to contributors

* Fix grammar nits

* Revise question 5 based on suggestions from @cabo

* fix: Update document shepherd writeup template based on community review

* Point to the new "content guidelines" page @JayDaley added

* Suggestion from Jane Coffin

* Also extend this to contributors

* Fix grammar nits

* Revise question 5 based on suggestions from @cabo

* Apply suggestions from code review

By @richsalz

* Update ietf/templates/doc/shepherd_writeup.txt

* Update ietf/templates/doc/shepherd_writeup.txt

* Update ietf/templates/doc/shepherd_writeup.txt

* Update ietf/templates/doc/shepherd_writeup.txt

* Apply suggestions from code review

* Question 12 from Brad

* Update ietf/templates/doc/shepherd_writeup.txt

* Rewrap

* Fix test
This commit is contained in:
Lars Eggert 2022-07-07 19:44:49 +03:00 committed by GitHub
parent 2934ae27ba
commit 21452b7ecc
No known key found for this signature in database
GPG key ID: 4AEE18F83AFDEB23
2 changed files with 53 additions and 43 deletions
Show stats Download patch file Download diff file Expand all files Collapse all files

2
ietf/doc/tests_draft.py
View file

@ -1215,7 +1215,7 @@ class IndividualInfoFormsTests(TestCase):
r = self.client.post(url,dict(txt=test_file,reset_text="1"))
self.assertEqual(r.status_code, 200)
q = PyQuery(r.content)
self.assertTrue(q('textarea')[0].text.strip().startswith("# Document Shepherd Writeup")) # TODO: This is a poor test of whether the reset did anything
self.assertTrue(q('textarea')[0].text.strip().startswith("# Document Shepherd Write-Up")) # TODO: This is a poor test of whether the reset did anything
def test_edit_doc_extresources(self):
url = urlreverse('ietf.doc.views_draft.edit_doc_extresources', kwargs=dict(name=self.docname))

94
ietf/templates/doc/shepherd_writeup.txt
View file

@ -1,13 +1,13 @@
{# Keep in sync with https://github.com/ietf-chairs/chairs.ietf.org/blob/main/documents/qa-style-writeup-template.md #}{% if doc.stream %}{% if doc.stream.slug == 'ietf' %}# Document Shepherd Writeup
{# Keep in sync with https://github.com/ietf-chairs/chairs.ietf.org/blob/main/documents/qa-style-writeup-template.md #}{% if doc.stream %}{% if doc.stream.slug == 'ietf' %}# Document Shepherd Write-Up
*This version is dated 8 April 2022.*
*This version is dated 1 June 2022.*
Thank you for your service as a document shepherd. Among the responsibilities is
answering the questions in this writeup to give helpful context to Last Call and
Internet Engineering Steering Group ([IESG][1]) reviewers, and your diligence in
completing it, is appreciated. The full role of the shepherd is further
described in [RFC 4858][2], and informally. You will need the cooperation of
authors to complete these checks.
answering the questions in this write-up to give helpful context to Last Call
and Internet Engineering Steering Group ([IESG][1]) reviewers, and your
diligence in completing it is appreciated. The full role of the shepherd is
further described in [RFC 4858][2]. You will need the cooperation of the authors
and editors to complete these checks.
Note that some numbered items contain multiple related questions; please be sure
to answer all of them.
@ -39,8 +39,10 @@ to answer all of them.
### Additional Reviews
5. Does this document need review from other IETF working groups or external
organizations? Have those reviews occurred?
5. Do the contents of this document closely interact with technologies in other
IETF working groups or external organizations, and would it therefore benefit
from their review? Have those reviews occurred? If yes, describe which
reviews took place.
6. Describe how the document meets any required formal expert review criteria,
such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.
@ -63,41 +65,44 @@ to answer all of them.
to be handed off to the responsible Area Director?
10. Several IETF Areas have assembled [lists of common issues that their
reviewers encounter][6]. Do any such issues remain that would merit specific
attention from subsequent reviews?
reviewers encounter][6]. For which areas have such issues been identified
and addressed? For which does this still need to happen in subsequent
reviews?
11. What type of RFC publication is being requested on the IETF stream (Best
Current Practice, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard, Informational,
Experimental, or Historic)? Why is this the proper type of RFC? Do all
Datatracker state attributes correctly reflect this intent?
11. What type of RFC publication is being requested on the IETF stream ([Best
Current Practice][12], [Proposed Standard, Internet Standard][13],
[Informational, Experimental or Historic][14])? Why is this the proper type
of RFC? Do all Datatracker state attributes correctly reflect this intent?
12. Has the interested community confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR
disclosures required by [BCP 78][7] and [BCP 79][8] have been filed? If not,
explain why. If yes, summarize any discussion and conclusion regarding the
intellectual property rights (IPR) disclosures, including links to relevant
emails.
12. Have reasonable efforts been made to remind all authors of the intellectual
property rights (IPR) disclosure obligations described in [BCP 79][8]? To
the best of your knowledge, have all required disclosures been filed? If
not, explain why. If yes, summarize any relevant discussion, including links
to publicly-available messages when applicable.
13. Has each Author or Contributor confirmed their willingness to be listed as
such? If the number of Authors/Editors on the front page is greater than 5,
please provide a justification.
13. Has each author, editor, and contributor shown their willingness to be
listed as such? If the total number of authors and editors on the front page
is greater than five, please provide a justification.
14. Identify any remaining I-D nits in this document. (See [the idnits tool][9]
and the checkbox items found in Guidelines to Authors of Internet-Drafts).
Simply running the idnits tool is not enough; please review the entire
guidelines document.
14. Document any remaining I-D nits in this document. Simply running the [idnits
tool][8] is not enough; please review the ["Content Guidelines" on
authors.ietf.org][15]. (Also note that the current idnits tool generates
some incorrect warnings; a rewrite is underway.)
15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa?
15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the [IESG
Statement on Normative and Informative References][16].
16. List any normative references that are not freely available to anyone. Did
the community have sufficient access to review any such normative
references?
17. Are there any normative downward references (see [RFC 3967][10],
[BCP 97][11])? If so, list them.
17. Are there any normative downward references (see [RFC 3967][9] and [BCP
97][10]) that are not already listed in the [DOWNREF registry][17]? If so,
list them.
18. Are there normative references to documents that are not ready for
advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state? If they exist, what is the
plan for their completion?
18. Are there normative references to documents that are not ready to be
submitted to the IESG for publication or are otherwise in an unclear state?
If so, what is the plan for their completion?
19. Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? If
so, does the Datatracker metadata correctly reflect this and are those RFCs
@ -111,7 +116,7 @@ to answer all of them.
associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm
that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm
that each newly created IANA registry specifies its initial contents,
allocations procedures, and a reasonable name (see [RFC 8126][12]).
allocations procedures, and a reasonable name (see [RFC 8126][11]).
21. List any new IANA registries that require Designated Expert Review for
future allocations. Are the instructions to the Designated Expert clear?
@ -123,11 +128,16 @@ to answer all of them.
[4]: https://trac.ietf.org/trac/ops/wiki/yang-review-tools
[5]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8342.html
[6]: https://trac.ietf.org/trac/iesg/wiki/ExpertTopics
[7]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp78
[8]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp79
[9]: https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/
[10]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3967.html
[11]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp97
[12]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8126.html
{% else %}There is no default shepherd writeup template for the {{doc.stream}} stream.
{% endif %}{% else %}There is no stream set for this document (thus, no default shepherd writeup template).{% endif %}
[7]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp79
[8]: https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/
[9]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3967.html
[10]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp97
[11]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8126.html
[12]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-5
[13]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.1
[14]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.2
[15]: https://authors.ietf.org/en/content-guidelines-overview
[16]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/normative-informative-references/
[17]: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/downref/
{% else %}There is no default shepherd write-up template for the {{doc.stream}} stream.
{% endif %}{% else %}There is no stream set for this document (thus, no default shepherd write-up template).{% endif %}