From 5d22df9e2514f1a1bcf377ef90fe31aa8358002a Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Henrik Levkowetz Date: Thu, 18 Apr 2013 22:14:50 +0000 Subject: [PATCH] Added templates missing from release 4.44. - Legacy-Id: 5664 --- ietf/templates/doc/shepherd_writeup.txt | 263 ++++++++++++++++++ ietf/templates/idrfc/change_shepherd.html | 46 +++ .../idrfc/change_shepherd_writeup.html | 40 +++ ietf/templates/idrfc/shepherd_writeup.html | 25 ++ 4 files changed, 374 insertions(+) create mode 100644 ietf/templates/doc/shepherd_writeup.txt create mode 100644 ietf/templates/idrfc/change_shepherd.html create mode 100644 ietf/templates/idrfc/change_shepherd_writeup.html create mode 100644 ietf/templates/idrfc/shepherd_writeup.html diff --git a/ietf/templates/doc/shepherd_writeup.txt b/ietf/templates/doc/shepherd_writeup.txt new file mode 100644 index 000000000..865965fd6 --- /dev/null +++ b/ietf/templates/doc/shepherd_writeup.txt @@ -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 %} diff --git a/ietf/templates/idrfc/change_shepherd.html b/ietf/templates/idrfc/change_shepherd.html new file mode 100644 index 000000000..44447f38f --- /dev/null +++ b/ietf/templates/idrfc/change_shepherd.html @@ -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 %} + +{% endblock %} + +{% block content %} +

Change the document shepherd for {{ doc.name }}-{{ doc.rev }}

+ +
+ + {% for field in form.visible_fields %} + + + + + {% endfor %} + + + + +
{{ field.label_tag }}: + {{ field }} + {% if field.help_text %}
{{ field.help_text }}
{% endif %} + {{ field.errors }} +
+ Back + +
+
+{% endblock %} +{% block content_end %} + + +{% endblock %} diff --git a/ietf/templates/idrfc/change_shepherd_writeup.html b/ietf/templates/idrfc/change_shepherd_writeup.html new file mode 100644 index 000000000..bf804a2c6 --- /dev/null +++ b/ietf/templates/idrfc/change_shepherd_writeup.html @@ -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 %} +

Edit shepherd writeup for {{ doc.canonical_name }}-{{ doc.rev }}

+ +
+ + {% for field in form.visible_fields %} + + + + + {% endfor %} + + + + +
{{ field.label_tag }}: + {{ field }} + {% if field.help_text %}
{{ field.help_text }}
{% endif %} + {{ field.errors }} +
+ Back + + +
+
+ +{% endblock %} diff --git a/ietf/templates/idrfc/shepherd_writeup.html b/ietf/templates/idrfc/shepherd_writeup.html new file mode 100644 index 000000000..cd658e706 --- /dev/null +++ b/ietf/templates/idrfc/shepherd_writeup.html @@ -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 %} +

Shepherd writeup for {{ doc.canonical_name }}-{{ doc.rev }}

+ +
{{writeup}}
+ +Back + +{% if can_edit %} +{% url doc_edit_shepherd_writeup name=doc.name as doc_edit_url %}{% if doc_edit_url %}Edit{% endif %} +{% endif %} + +{% endblock %}