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

Added templates missing from release 4.44.

Browse source 
- Legacy-Id: 5664
This commit is contained in:
Henrik Levkowetz 2013-04-18 22:14:50 +00:00
parent f159416157
commit 5d22df9e25
4 changed files with 374 additions and 0 deletions
Show stats Download patch file Download diff file Expand all files Collapse all files

263
ietf/templates/doc/shepherd_writeup.txt Normal file
View file

@ -0,0 +1,263 @@
{% if doc.stream %}{% if doc.stream.slug == 'ietf' %}{% if doc.group.type.slug == 'individ' %}As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document
Shepherd Write-Up.
Changes are expected over time. This version is dated 24 February 2012.
(1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard,
Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? Why
is this the proper type of RFC? Is this type of RFC indicated in the
title page header?
(2) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document Announcement
Write-Up. Please provide such a Document Announcement Write-Up. Recent
examples can be found in the "Action" announcements for approved
documents. The approval announcement contains the following sections:
Technical Summary
Relevant content 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.
Working Group Summary
Was the document considered in any WG, and if so, why was
it not adopted as a work item there? Was there controversy
about particular points that caused the WG to not adopt the
document?
Document Quality
Are there existing implementations of the protocol? Have a
significant number of vendors indicated their plan to
implement the specification? Are there any reviewers that
merit special mention as having done a thorough review,
e.g., one that resulted in important changes or a
conclusion that the document had no substantive issues? If
there was a MIB Doctor, Media Type or other expert review,
what was its course (briefly)? In the case of a Media Type
review, on what date was the request posted?
Personnel
Who is the Document Shepherd? Who is the Responsible Area
Director?
(3) Briefly describe the review of this document that was performed by
the Document Shepherd. If this version of the document is not ready
for publication, please explain why the document is being forwarded to
the IESG.
(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or
breadth of the reviews that have been performed?
(5) Do portions of the document need review from a particular or from
broader perspective, e.g., security, operational complexity, AAA, DNS,
DHCP, XML, or internationalization? If so, describe the review that
took place.
(6) Describe any specific concerns or issues that the Document Shepherd
has with this document that the Responsible Area Director and/or the
IESG should be aware of? For example, perhaps he or she is uncomfortable
with certain parts of the document, or has concerns whether there really
is a need for it. In any event, if the interested community has
discussed those issues and has indicated that it still wishes to advance
the document, detail those concerns here.
(7) Has each author confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR
disclosures required for full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78
and BCP 79 have already been filed. If not, explain why.
(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document?
If so, summarize any discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR
disclosures.
(9) How solid is the consensus of the interested community behind this
document? Does it represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals,
with others being silent, or does the interested community as a whole
understand and agree with it?
(10) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme
discontent? If so, please summarise the areas of conflict in separate
email messages to the Responsible Area Director. (It should be in a
separate email because this questionnaire is publicly available.)
(11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this
document. (See http://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts
Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be
thorough.
(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review
criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.
(13) Have all references within this document been identified as
either normative or informative?
(14) Are there normative references to documents that are not ready for
advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state? If such normative
references exist, what is the plan for their completion?
(15) Are there downward normative references references (see RFC 3967)?
If so, list these downward references to support the Area Director in
the Last Call procedure.
(16) Will publication of this document change the status of any existing
RFCs? Are those RFCs listed on the title page header, listed in the
abstract, and discussed in the introduction? If the RFCs are not listed
in the Abstract and Introduction, explain why, and point to the part of
the document where the relationship of this document to the other RFCs
is discussed. If this information is not in the document, explain why
the interested community considers it unnecessary.
(17) Describe the Document Shepherd's review of the IANA considerations
section, especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the
document. Confirm that all protocol extensions that the document makes
are associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries.
Confirm that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly
identified. Confirm that newly created IANA registries include a
detailed specification of the initial contents for the registry, that
allocations procedures for future registrations are defined, and a
reasonable name for the new registry has been suggested (see RFC 5226).
(18) List any new IANA registries that require Expert Review for future
allocations. Provide any public guidance that the IESG would find
useful in selecting the IANA Experts for these new registries.
(19) Describe reviews and automated checks performed by to validate
sections of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code,
BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc.
{% else %}As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document
Shepherd Write-Up.
Changes are expected over time. This version is dated 24 February 2012.
(1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard,
Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? Why
is this the proper type of RFC? Is this type of RFC indicated in the
title page header?
(2) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document Announcement
Write-Up. Please provide such a Document Announcement Write-Up. Recent
examples can be found in the "Action" announcements for approved
documents. The approval announcement contains the following sections:
Technical Summary
Relevant content 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.
Working Group Summary
Was there anything in WG process that is worth noting? For
example, was there controversy about particular points or
were there decisions where the consensus was particularly
rough?
Document Quality
Are there existing implementations of the protocol? Have a
significant number of vendors indicated their plan to
implement the specification? Are there any reviewers that
merit special mention as having done a thorough review,
e.g., one that resulted in important changes or a
conclusion that the document had no substantive issues? If
there was a MIB Doctor, Media Type or other expert review,
what was its course (briefly)? In the case of a Media Type
review, on what date was the request posted?
Personnel
Who is the Document Shepherd? Who is the Responsible Area
Director?
(3) Briefly describe the review of this document that was performed by
the Document Shepherd. If this version of the document is not ready
for publication, please explain why the document is being forwarded to
the IESG.
(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or
breadth of the reviews that have been performed?
(5) Do portions of the document need review from a particular or from
broader perspective, e.g., security, operational complexity, AAA, DNS,
DHCP, XML, or internationalization? If so, describe the review that
took place.
(6) Describe any specific concerns or issues that the Document Shepherd
has with this document that the Responsible Area Director and/or the
IESG should be aware of? For example, perhaps he or she is uncomfortable
with certain parts of the document, or has concerns whether there really
is a need for it. In any event, if the WG has discussed those issues and
has indicated that it still wishes to advance the document, detail those
concerns here.
(7) Has each author confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR
disclosures required for full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78
and BCP 79 have already been filed. If not, explain why.
(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document?
If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR
disclosures.
(9) 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?
(10) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme
discontent? If so, please summarise the areas of conflict in separate
email messages to the Responsible Area Director. (It should be in a
separate email because this questionnaire is publicly available.)
(11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this
document. (See http://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts
Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be
thorough.
(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review
criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.
(13) Have all references within this document been identified as
either normative or informative?
(14) Are there normative references to documents that are not ready for
advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state? If such normative
references exist, what is the plan for their completion?
(15) Are there downward normative references references (see RFC 3967)?
If so, list these downward references to support the Area Director in
the Last Call procedure.
(16) Will publication of this document change the status of any
existing RFCs? Are those RFCs listed on the title page header, listed
in the abstract, and discussed in the introduction? If the RFCs are not
listed in the Abstract and Introduction, explain why, and point to the
part of the document where the relationship of this document to the
other RFCs is discussed. If this information is not in the document,
explain why the WG considers it unnecessary.
(17) Describe the Document Shepherd's review of the IANA considerations
section, especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the
document. Confirm that all protocol extensions that the document makes
are associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries.
Confirm that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly
identified. Confirm that newly created IANA registries include a
detailed specification of the initial contents for the registry, that
allocations procedures for future registrations are defined, and a
reasonable name for the new registry has been suggested (see RFC 5226).
(18) List any new IANA registries that require Expert Review for future
allocations. Provide any public guidance that the IESG would find
useful in selecting the IANA Experts for these new registries.
(19) Describe reviews and automated checks performed by the Document
Shepherd to validate sections of the document written in a formal
language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc.
{% endif %}{% else %}There is no default template for the {{d.stream}} stream
{% endif %}{% else %}There is no stream set for this document (thus, no default template)
{% endif %}

46
ietf/templates/idrfc/change_shepherd.html Normal file
View file

@ -0,0 +1,46 @@
{% extends "base.html" %}
{% block morecss %}
.warning {
font-weight: bold;
color: #a00;
}
{% endblock %}
{% block title %}
Change the document shepherd for {{ doc.name }}-{{ doc.rev }}
{% endblock %}
{% block pagehead %}
<link rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" href="/css/token-input.css"></link>
{% endblock %}
{% block content %}
<h1>Change the document shepherd for {{ doc.name }}-{{ doc.rev }}</h1>
<form class="edit-info" action="" enctype="multipart/form-data" method="POST">
<table>
{% for field in form.visible_fields %}
<tr>
<th>{{ field.label_tag }}:</th>
<td>
{{ field }}
{% if field.help_text %}<div class="help">{{ field.help_text }}</div>{% endif %}
{{ field.errors }}
</td>
</tr>
{% endfor %}
<tr>
<td></td>
<td class="actions">
<a href="{% url doc_view name=doc.name %}">Back</a>
<input type="submit" value="Submit"/>
</td>
</tr>
</table>
</form>
{% endblock %}
{% block content_end %}
<script type="text/javascript" src="/js/lib/jquery.tokeninput.js"></script>
<script type="text/javascript" src="/js/emails-field.js"></script>
{% endblock %}

40
ietf/templates/idrfc/change_shepherd_writeup.html Normal file
View file

@ -0,0 +1,40 @@
{% extends "base.html" %}
{% block morecss %}
form #id_content {
width: 40em;
height: 450px;
}
{% endblock %}
{% block title %}
Edit shepherd writeup for {{ doc.canonical_name }}-{{ doc.rev }}
{% endblock %}
{% block content %}
<h1>Edit shepherd writeup for {{ doc.canonical_name }}-{{ doc.rev }}</h1>
<form class="edit-info" action="" enctype="multipart/form-data" method="POST">
<table>
{% for field in form.visible_fields %}
<tr>
<th>{{ field.label_tag }}:</th>
<td>
{{ field }}
{% if field.help_text %}<div class="help">{{ field.help_text }}</div>{% endif %}
{{ field.errors }}
</td>
</tr>
{% endfor %}
<tr>
<td></td>
<td class="actions">
<a href="{% url doc_view name=doc.canonical_name %}">Back</a>
<input type="submit" name="reset_text" value="Reset to Template Text"/>
<input type="submit" name="submit_response" value="Submit"/>
</td>
</tr>
</table>
</form>
{% endblock %}

25
ietf/templates/idrfc/shepherd_writeup.html Normal file
View file

@ -0,0 +1,25 @@
{% extends "base.html" %}
{% block morecss %}
form #id_content {
width: 40em;
height: 450px;
}
{% endblock %}
{% block title %}
Shepherd writeup for {{ doc.canonical_name }}-{{ doc.rev }}
{% endblock %}
{% block content %}
<h1>Shepherd writeup for {{ doc.canonical_name }}-{{ doc.rev }}</h1>
<pre style="border:1px solid black;padding:5px;">{{writeup}}</pre>
<a href="{% url doc_view name=doc.name %}">Back</a>
{% if can_edit %}
<span id="doc_edit_shepherd_writeup" class="yui-button yui-link-button" style="margin-left:2px;">{% url doc_edit_shepherd_writeup name=doc.name as doc_edit_url %}{% if doc_edit_url %}<span class="first-child"><a href="{{doc_edit_url}}">Edit</a></span>{% endif %}</span>
{% endif %}
{% endblock %}