| Network Working Group | B. Leiba |
| Internet-Draft | Huawei Technologies |
| Intended status: Informational | August 02, 2012 |
| Expires: February 01, 2013 |
Document Shepherding Throughout a Document's Lifecycle
draft-leiba-extended-doc-shepherd-00
RFC 4858 talks about "Document Shepherding from Working Group Last Call to Publication". There's a significant part of a document's life that happens before working group last call, starting, really, at the time a working group begins discussing a version of the idea that's been posted as an individual draft. It seems reasonable and helpful to begin shepherding when there's a call for adoption as a working group document, and this document gives one Area Director's view of how that extended shepherding function might work, and what tasks might be involved throughout the document's lifecycle.
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- Drafts is at http:/⁠/⁠datatracker.ietf.org/⁠drafts/⁠current/⁠.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on February 01, 2013.
Copyright (c) 2012 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (http:/⁠/⁠trustee.ietf.org/⁠license-⁠info) in effect on the date of publication of this document. Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as described in the Simplified BSD License.
RFC 4858 talks about "Document Shepherding from Working Group Last Call to Publication" [RFC4858]. There's a significant part of a document's life that happens before Working Group Last Call, starting, really, at the time a working group begins discussing a version of the idea that's been posted as an individual draft. It seems reasonable and helpful to begin shepherding at the time there's a call for adoption as a working group document, and this document gives one Area Director's view of how that extended shepherding function might work, and what tasks might be involved throughout the document's lifecycle.
It has been very common to see documents -- including some that I have authored, and some for which I have been the Responsible Chair -- progress far too slowly, sometimes languishing for many months and even for years due to neglect. Sometimes a working group will intentionally set a document aside, put it on a back burner while it works on more pressing things. But it's often *not* intentional, and the document sits around because of lack of follow-through, waking up occasionally when someone realizes that the last version has expired and an IETF meeting is coming up soon.
We would really prefer to process documents efficiently, ensuring that whatever happens is intentional: that documents are set aside only when it makes sense to do so, and that active documents move forward in the process, with someone assigned to make sure that happens.
This document suggests specific tasks a Working Group Chair should be doing or delegating in order to maintain forward progress, accountability, and quality control on a working group document. It adds to what's in RFC 4858, intending to extend it, not replace it. Major extensions involve assigning a Shepherd and defining specific tasks earlier in a document's life, and possibly delegating Document Shepherd tasks to a Shepherd who is neither a Chair nor the Working Group Secretary (consistent with the IESG Statement on Document Shepherds [Stmt]).
By providing summaries in each section of the tasks expected at that stage in the document's lifecycle, I hope to make this an easy reference and checklist for Working Group Chairs and Document Shepherds.
Because this document is specifically one individual's thoughts on this matter, it's worth pointing out that the document makes no process changes and there is no normative language here.
I use Initial Capitals in some terms, such as "Document Shepherd", to indicate that those terms represent formal roles in the management model I'm describing.
This document looks at the Document Shepherd as a "function", rather than as a single person. The Document Shepherd Function has a set of tasks that need to be performed, but the tasks do not all have to be performed by one individual.
While, ultimately, it is the responsibility of the Working Group Chairs to ensure that the shepherding tasks get done, the Chairs do not have to do all those tasks by themselves. From Section 6.1 of the Working Group Guidelines and Procedures [RFC2418]:
This document proposes an extended set of Document Shepherd tasks, well beyond those covered in RFC 4858. In many cases it will be reasonable to assign the entire Document Shepherd Function to one person (to a Chair or to a non-chair delegate), but in many other cases the Chairs will likely choose to delegate parts of that function and keep other parts for themselves. In any case, the Chairs remain responsible for the management of the working group; they are whom the Area Director will come to if something goes wrong or things fail to make progress.
As I talk, then, about what the "Document Shepherd" does, understand that the individual doing each particular task will be the one assigned that task as the work on a particular document is laid out. When I say that the Shepherd should do a task in consultation with the Chairs, that's automatically true when it's already a Chair who's doing it.
And this bears repeating, so I will say it more than once here: Nothing in this document is suggesting that the Working Group Chairs abdicate any responsibility. They have the final responsibility for managing each document's progress and for managing the working group in general. Any Chair who chooses to delegate some of this responsibility must still ensure that it's carried out properly. And any Chair who does not feel comfortable delegating any of this should not do so.
From the time a working group is asked to take on a document as one of its work items, the document will go through a number of stages:
Through most of those stages steps will have to be taken, tasks will need to be performed, to make sure the document moves forward, that consensus is reached, that the right reviews are done, that updates are made, that consensus still holds after significant changes, and so on. That set of tasks comprises the Document Shepherd Function.
The following sections will discuss some of the tasks needed at each stage, and will suggest how Working Group Chairs might handle those tasks and their delegation -- how the Document Shepherd Function might work. The details will vary, depending upon how each working group is managed, but what follows should be a good example, and will provide a basis for adaptation. And see also Section 3 of [RFC4858].
At the point that the working group begins considering adoption of a document, the Working Group Chairs have some decisions to make. This is the time to choose a Responsible Chair for the document, much as it will eventually have a Responsible Area Director later in its life. The Responsible Chair will be the one who oversees the Document Shepherd Function and has primary responsibility for making sure that everything gets done.
The Responsible Chair should then (perhaps in consultation with the other Chair(s), depending upon the Chairs' agreement about division of work) decide how much of the Document Shepherd Function to handle herself, and which pieces, if any, to delegate. Examples might be as follows:
And so on... there may be many combinations, many levels of supervision vs autonomy, many ways to divide the work. It's also possible to delegate to more than one non-chair Shepherd at different stages, though I don't think that's a good idea -- the continuity and centralized responsibility of making it one other person (supervised by one Responsible Chair) seems best.
Some Chairs may prefer to handle all tasks themselves, because, after all, they remain responsible for their successful completion. Yet there's a lot to be gained by delegating much of the work. Delegating work and giving a degree of responsibility to relatively more junior participants gets people more closely engaged with the working group and with the IETF. Giving significant responsibility can be an excellent training exercise, preparing participants to take on future roles as Working Group Chairs. And in a busy working group, offloading work from the Chairs to senior, experienced people (perhaps former Chairs or former ADs) can prevent the Chairs from being overcommitted, enabling the work to move forward much more efficiently.
And, of course, a non-chair Shepherd can and should consult with the Responsible Chair whenever she feels the need, and certainly whenever issues arise of which the Chairs should be aware, or about which the Shepherd needs advice or other help.
Once it is determined who will handle the Document Shepherd tasks, the Shepherd needs to do the actual adoption process. The details will vary based on how the particular working group is run, but a typical process will start with posting a call for adoption to the working group mailing list, pointing to the individual draft that's being considered. There'll be a comment period for adoption discussion, after which the Shepherd will, based on working group discussion make a judgment and announce the result to the list.
Assuming that the document was adopted, the Chairs will appoint one or more Editors for the working group version of the document (these are often, but not always, the same people who wrote the individual version, and the Chairs should put some thought into who the right Editors should be), and will handle the datatracker updates (for which Chair access is required). The Chairs should not forget to record the name and email address of the Document Shepherd in the tracker -- this will ensure that the Shepherd is copied on necessary email later.
In summary, the tasks at the Call for Adoption stage might be as follows:
Once a -00 version is posted, the Shepherd's primary task is to keep the document moving forward: keeping discussion going, making sure issues are tracked and document updates are posted, and helping things toward consensus. Let's not downplay the importance of active management here: this is where things so often fall short, what causes documents to take *years* to complete. The Shepherd should not rush discussions that are useful, but the Shepherd should make sure that things don't get lost in the forest either.
The Chairs will decide how the working group should be managed, and any non-chair Shepherd should be working with the Chairs at this stage, communicating any difficulties and getting help with issue resolution when needed. Tools such as the issue tracker and the working group wiki, which are available to every working group, may be helpful here -- particularly if many issues come up, if issues are often taking a long time to be resolved, or if the same issues tend to come up repeatedly. The issue tracker can be used to record not just the issues themselves, but significant parts of the discussion on both sides, helping to make it clearer what the resolution was and why, and whether a particular request to re-open a closed issue really involves new points or is just a re-hash.
Discussions need to be steered, with a goal of avoiding unproductive, circular discussions, re-hashing of old arguments, and tangential discussions that go "off into the weeds". Discussions also often need to be prodded. Lulls can be fine, but when it looks like nothing is happening for a while, remind the participants of open issues, ask for reviews of updated document versions or of recent changes that don't seem to have been discussed. It's often useful to make specific requests of participants off list. The goal here is to ensure that rough consensus is reached on the document, covering as much of the document as possible, and certainly covering the key points.
Document Editors need to be prodded as well. We're all volunteers, and many of us are working on a lot of things. A particular document can fall off to the side for a long while. It's best to avoid the trap of getting updates only before each IETF meeting, just in time to beat the submission cutoff. If updates aren't posted fairly promptly after a set of issues is resolved, ask the Editors when they'll be able to get changes rolled into a new document version. Check that the Editors are following working group consensus as they make their updates.
Even with plenty of prodding and reminding and steering, it happens that a document simply can't be finished and abandoning it needs to be considered. Perhaps there's no longer the interest there was at adoption. Perhaps the document has been overtaken by other events. Or perhaps there's too much controversy over it, and rough consensus just isn't going to happen. The Shepherd should consult with the Chairs to decide whether the working group should stop work on the document.
The Shepherd will know when the document is moving from this stage into the next, and when she needs to shift the focus into preparation for last call and for getting the document to the AD.
In summary, the tasks for the Shepherd at the Working Group Document stage might be as follows:
When any contentious issues have been resolved and the document has had a good level of review, the Shepherd should start looking at when it's time to wrap things up, have a last call within the working group, and get the document ready to send to the Responsible AD. What needs to be done now is largely the same as in the Working Group Document stage, but with a particular aim of getting remaining issues closed and making sure that discussions are tightly focused. Where veering off to explore things that might be added to the document was a fine thing to do in the earlier stages, this is the time to say that the document is "feature complete", and to keep discussions reined in.
Working Group Last Call is a recommended step, though not a required one, and most working groups do issue a formal "last call" before sending the document to the Responsible AD. The Shepherd can take the responsibility of issuing that message and of analyzing comments to determine whether things are ready to go ahead.
This is also the time to make sure that important reviews are done. Ask for reviews from key working group contributors, and check whether any external reviews are needed. External reviews might include expert reviews for IANA registrations, reviews of formal specifications such as MIBs, XML, and ABNF, and reviews from experts in other areas (does the document need to be checked by a web services expert, a security expert, a DNS expert?). Some of this will happen automatically later -- there will be a Security Directorate review at some point, for example -- but it's easier on the Document Editors and the working group if you know something is particularly necessary and arrange for it sooner. The IANA folks are willing to do an early review of the IANA actions at this stage, so consider asking for that if the document has a large or unusually involved set of IANA actions.
The shepherd writeup, which can be found in the IESG section of the IETF web site [Writeup], is a good reference to the Shepherd for making sure the necessary bits are being covered, so this is also a good time to start the writeup. It will be finished later, when the document is ready to be sent to the Responsible AD, but getting a start now can be helpful, and will serve as a reminder to ask the questions and request the reviews that will later be needed.
The tasks for the Shepherd at the Working Group Last Call stage might be as follows:
Working Group Last Call is over, and the Shepherd has determined that any issues that came out of that have been adequately resolved. It's time to finish up the shepherd writeup, dotting the last of the "i"s and crossing the final "t"s.
Remember that the shepherd writeup serves two major purposes:
For the first purpose, "yes" and "no" are reasonable answers to some of the writeup questions. In particular, a number of the questions ask if something has been checked, or it some abnormal situation exists. "Yes" to confirm that the check has been made, or "no" to state that the abnormal situation does not exist are fine responses. Of course, if the answer to the first is "no" or to the second is "yes", further explanation is necessary. In other words, "yes" could be a reasonable answer by itself, but "no" would require more by way of explanation... or vice versa.
But for the second purpose, providing useful information to the IESG, yes/no responses are of little or no use. Questions about the working group process and discussions are especially looking for some sort of narrative information. Don't just say that there was much discussion that eventually reached consensus, or that there were a number of controversial points that were resolved -- say something about the discussion, talk a bit about the controversies. If there were particular points that simply did not get any discussion but probably should have, say that.
Knowing the trouble spots, and the strong and weak points of the discussion and consensus, will allow the IESG to properly evaluate the document. That can avoid the IESG's revisiting issues that were already done to death in the working group. It's common to have DISCUSS positions in which ADs are questioning a point that the working group discussed at length, and a brief explanation in the writeup could have avoided having it come up again then.
When the Shepherd has the writeup done, a non-chair Shepherd should consult with the Chairs to make sure they're happy with it and agree with what's in it. The Chairs will then need to make some datatracker updates that only they have authorization for: they will upload the writeup to the tracker and change the document state.
Finally, the Shepherd (or the Responsible Chair) will email the writeup to the Responsible AD, with CC to the IESG Secretary, asking that the document be considered for publication. Including the writeup in email, as well as in the tracker, and including the IESG Secretary on CC, are both meant to ensure that nothing gets lost and that a record is kept of the publication request. And as RFC 4858 says, the Shepherd should also email the writeup to the working group's mailing list, so the working group is aware of it. The writeup will be public anyway, because it will be in the datatracker, so it can only help the open process to make it more visible to the working group whose work it reflects.
See also Section 3.1 of [RFC4858], but note that the writeup template has changed significantly since the version in that document. The current writeup is in the IESG section of the IETF web site [Writeup].
The tasks at the Shepherd Writeup Underway stage might be as follows:
The next stage in the process is up to the Responsible Area Director, and the Document Shepherd has but one easy task: make this stage as short as possible. The Responsible AD or the IESG Secretary will do some document state changes in the datatracker (to Publication Requested and then to AD Review), and the AD will review the document and either request IETF Last Call or respond to the authors (and, we hope, to the Shepherd as well; here's where it was useful to have put the Shepherd's email address in the tracker) with review comments and suggested changes. In the latter case, the document's state will change to "AD Review, Revised I-D Needed".
The Shepherd needs to watch for the key state changes and the AD's review. If the review doesn't happen in a reasonable time -- allowing for a busy AD's schedule and remembering that the document you're shepherding isn't the only one on the AD's docket -- send a reminder... perhaps as a question, "How is the review on draft-ietf-frobozz-xyzzy coming?" Use your judgment to decide how long to wait, but most ADs will appreciate a reminder here and there as long as it's not at the level of "pestering".
Once the review comes in, make sure the Document Editors are on top of it and respond in a timely manner. Make sure that the working group is consulted on issues brought up in the review that are significant enough to require the working group's engagement in the response. Editorial tweaks can arguably be handled by the editors alone at this point, and changes to the protocol clearly need to go back to the working group, but many issues fall in between, and good judgment is important.
Many documents spend *months* in AD Review state, largely because of lack of good shepherding. It may look like there's only one major task here, but it's an important one. Please don't give it short shrift.
See also Section 3.2 of [RFC4858].
The tasks for the Shepherd at the AD Review stage might be as follows:
Once the Responsible AD is satisfied that the document is ready to move ahead, she will put it in Last Call Requested state. That prompts the IESG Secretary to send out the Last Call announcement and to put the document into "In Last Call".
The Shepherd's job in the IETF Last Call stage is very similar to what's needed in AD Review. Start by watching for last-call comments, including various special reviews. Reviews will come in from the Security Directorate and the General Area Review Team (GenART), and some may also come from other review teams and directorates. Reviews might also be coming in at this stage, if they haven't already, that were specifically requested by the Shepherd (see the Working Group Last Call stage).
The Shepherd needs to make sure all of those reviews are addressed by the document editors, and that the specifically requested reviews get done. "Addressed" doesn't mean that every change asked for in every last-call comment needs to be made. Sometimes, a reasonable response is to say that the working group discussed the point, and the document correctly reflects its consensus -- that is, the working group disagrees with the last-call comment. At other times, it's reasonable to disagree with the reviewer and look for any other support for the reviewer's position. Rough consensus can be a tricky thing, but the bottom line is that all comments need at least be considered. Directorate and review-team reviews, in particular, require acknowledgment and response (though they, too, can be disagreed with).
During Last Call, IANA will review the document's IANA Considerations, will respond with their summary of what they think needs to be done by IANA after the document is approved, and will ask any questions they have. The Shepherd should watch for this review and make sure that the actions IANA proposes are correct and that any questions they have are answered. See also Section 4 of [RFC4858].
Different Responsible ADs will have different preferences for whether documents in IETF Last Call should be updated while they're still in that state. The Shepherd should check with the AD and advise the Document Editors. Sometimes it's best to keep a stable version throughout last-call review; other times it's better to get changes posted quickly, so the same issues aren't brought up by multiple reviewers. Work with the AD and the editors to handle this.
The tasks for the Shepherd at the IETF Last Call stage might be as follows:
When Last Call completes, the tracker state for the document will automatically go to "Waiting for AD Go-Ahead". This is the Shepherd's signal to re-check the comments from last call, to make sure an updated I-D is posted that is ready for IESG Evaluation, and to let the Responsible AD know when everything is set. The AD will be watching for this as well, and in many cases the Shepherd won't need to be involved here. But, as in the other stages, it's the Shepherd's responsibility to keep an eye on things and make sure what's needed gets done.
The tasks for the Shepherd at the Waiting for AD Go-Ahead stage might be as follows:
As the ADs do their reviews they will record ballot positions on the document. Ballot positions can be one of "Yes", "No Objection", "Discuss", and "Abstain" (there's also "Recuse" for cases when the AD has a conflict of interest with the document (if, for example, the AD is one of the authors/editors)). Any of these ballot positions can be accompanied by non-blocking review comments, and "Discuss" also comes with blocking comments in addition -- these must be resolved to the satisfaction of the Discussing AD before the document can be approved by by the IESG. The document will be scheduled for a bi-weekly "telechat" (at the time of this writing they're on Thursdays), and it will be approved then or left in one of several follow-up states.
The IESG Evaluation period is normally somewhere between one and three weeks, though it can be as little as a day or two in unusual circumstances. Be aware, though, that there's usually a burst of review activity in the final few days before the telechat, and expect most reviews to come in then.
The IESG Evaluation comments and DISCUSS positions will be copied to the Document Shepherd (again, it was important to have put the Shepherd's email address in the tracker), and the Shepherd should be watching for them and making sure that the Document Editors respond promptly -- at this stage, quick turnaround is most important. Sometimes the Shepherd or Chairs might respond to AD questions and comments themselves, and sometimes they might leave it to the editors. The process works best when everyone engages, with the goal of resolving the issues brought up by the ADs as efficiently as possible.
A word about DISCUSS positions: Many Document Editors treat these as adversarial situations created by aggressive ADs, but that's generally not the intent. First, many DISCUSSes are resolved quickly and easily by a round of email with the Discussing AD, and that's as it should be: the point is that the AD has something to "discuss" with those responsible for the document before she can agree to the document's approval. Second, many DISCUSSes that do take more effort, often significant back and forth with the Discussing AD and other IESG members, result in a better document, having cleared up some significant confusion or having closed a hole in the specification that was missed at earlier stages. Please try to treat the situation as one in which everyone is looking to make the document better.
Most often, ADs who record DISCUSS positions (and review comments) are quite responsive, and will work with the Editors and Shepherd to get everything resolved. Sometimes, though, a busy AD can find herself lacking the time to respond. The Shepherd should keep the ADs honest, pushing for quick responses. In earlier stages, too-frequent reminders might be considered unreasonable, but at this stage discussion should be fairly brisk, and a delay of more than a couple of days should be unusual, on either side.
The IESG web site has more details about IESG ballot positions [Ballot] and about IESG DISCUSS ballots in particular [Discuss]. And see also Section 3.3 of [RFC4858].
The tasks for the Shepherd at the IESG Evaluation stage might be as follows:
Once the document has been on a telechat, any necessary revised versions have been posted, and all DISCUSS positions are "cleared", the Responsible AD (or the IESG Secretary) will put the document into the "Approved, Announcement to be Sent" state. If there's any follow-up that needs to be done, it will be held with a sub-state (usually "Point Raised, Writeup Needed"), and the Shepherd should make sure whatever final checks that are needed get done, and that the Responsible AD clears the sub-state and informs the IESG Secretary.
At this stage, it's usually a matter of making sure that the latest version of the document adequately addresses the non-blocking comments by the ADs, and that any necessary RFC Editor notes are entered. The Shepherd should work with the Responsible AD to understand what still needs to be done, and to make sure it happens.
The tasks for the Shepherd at the Approved by the IESG stage might be as follows:
Shortly after the approval announcement is sent out, the document will go into the RFC Editor queue, and the Shepherd will start seeing it pass through a number of RFC Editor states. For most of this, the Shepherd need do nothing, and is just waiting for the AUTH48 state. This will usually take between a few weeks and a few months, depending upon many factors, but it can be held up indefinitely by normative references to documents that are not yet ready for publication. Be aware of what the document is waiting for, and otherwise just wait. If anything looks odd, ask the Responsible AD to check.
The tasks for the Shepherd at the In RFC Editor Queue stage might be as follows:
AUTH48 is an RFC Editor state that occurs when the RFC Editors have done their final edits on the document before publication. It's meant to represent a 48-hour period in which the AUTHors can review what the RFC Editor has changed, have a final look at the document, and make sure it's ready to go.
AUTH48 is a critical document state; do not downplay its importance. At this stage, the Shepherd should re-review the document, paying special attention to recent changes. The Document Editors must do the same, and a response from every Author/Editor listed at the top of the document is required before the RFC Editor will finish the publication process. The Document Shepherd needs to make sure that the Editors all respond, and should take the lead in prompting them early and frequently. Remember that "AUTH48" is meant to refer to 48 hours, not 48 days. Don't let this drag on.
The RFC Editor will often have questions that the Authors/Editors need to answer. The Document Editors often have minor changes to insert at this point. The Shepherd should consider those answers, those changes, and the changes the RFC Editor has made leading into AUTH48, and assess (in consultation with the Chairs and the Responsible AD) whether any changes need to be passed back to the working group -- remember that the document has been approved by rough consensus of the working group, and then of the IETF as a whole, and the final, published version must continue to reflect that consensus.
It's unusual for there to be significant controversy at this stage, but it's been known to happen. Sometimes a change or a question by the RFC Editor will raise a question with the Document Editors that had not come up before. Sometimes, the right answer to one of those questions will be more than just editorial, and sometimes it will involve a significant technical decision. Decisions of that nature should not be made by the Document Editors alone, and the Shepherd should arrange to have them discussed by the working group.
Most of the time, though, this stage will run smoothly, the Document Editors will respond to the AUTH48 messages with a minimum of prodding, and the RFC Editor will announce their happiness and proceed with the publication process.
See also Section 5 of [RFC4858].
The tasks for the Shepherd at the AUTH48 stage might be as follows:
We're done. The RFC Editor has published the document, and the RFC announcement has been made. Many thanks to the Shepherd for having seen it through and for helping to assure a high quality document.
I've outlined a Document Shepherding Function, above, in a lot of detail, so let's put the executive summary back here:
What it all boils down to is setting up one person who takes responsibility for following the progress of a document from Call for Adoption through Publication, staying actively involved with managing the discussion and issue resolution at every stage, and making sure the necessary participants are responsive and that things don't languish from inattention.
And again, Working Group Chairs may delegate all or part of this function to a non-chair participant, or retain all responsibility for it themselves. In the latter case, I don't think what I'm describing here is anything different to what should be happening already. Setting it out as clear tasks and a set of stages in the document's lifecycle will make it easier to recognize what needs to be done when, and to handle delegation when the Chairs choose to delegate.
This document describes an individual's suggestion about IETF process, and is entirely unrelated to security in any way.
[The RFC Editor is asked to remove either this section or this paragraph, depending upon publication policy.]
No IANA actions are requested by this document, and the RFC Editor is asked to remove this section before publication.
| [RFC2418] | Bradner, S., "IETF Working Group Guidelines and Procedures", BCP 25, RFC 2418, September 1998. |
| [RFC4858] | Levkowetz, H., Meyer, D., Eggert, L. and A. Mankin, "Document Shepherding from Working Group Last Call to Publication", RFC 4858, May 2007. |
| [Stmt] | IESG, , "IESG Statement on Document Shepherds", October 2010. |
| [Writeup] | IESG, , "Working Group Submission Writeup", February 2012. |
| [Ballot] | IESG, , "IESG Ballot Procedures", May 2009. |
| [Discuss] | IESG, , "DISCUSS Criteria in IESG Review", July 2007. |