It is good to maintain good communication with the authors of a document the AD is responsible for. The first communication usually happens after the document leaves the WG, once publication is requested. Explaining how the process goes and making sure the doc progresses is usually the role of the doc shepherd, and if the document shepherd is active, can be delegated, but finally it is the responsibility of the AD.
Here is a draft mail Francesca has worked on, which includes expectations, timeline, etc, which she used to start communication with the authors. This should be adapted to fit the AD's ways of working: take it as an inspiration and make it yours!
Hello authors!
Congratulations on getting your document through WG Last Call. The next steps are:
I will review your document in the next two weeks (subject to other constraints and document length). You should reply to any comments or questions, but replies from others in the WG are also welcome. If major issues are found, your document's progress will be blocked until they are disposed of (possibly requiring a new version of the draft).
Then, I will start an IETF-wide Last Call that lasts 2 weeks (3 if overlapping an IETF meeting week). Several directorate reviews are also requested. These reviewers are usually not experts in the document’s topic, and come in with fresh eyes. You are usually responsible for answering these comments – however if any comment that comes up does not have a clear resolution, you should ask for the chairs and the working group’s help.
I will then change your document's status to "IESG evaluation" to trigger the IESG to start reviewing the document. Usually, IETF LC necessitates document changes, and you will need to publish a new version of the draft. If those changes are major, the status won't change until that version is available. If the changes are minor, I will move the status to "IESG evaluation" before the new version is posted, which should be uploaded as soon as possible.
The IESG will discuss your document, both in the datatracker and on a teleconference (which serves as the deadline for all AD reviews). It can take between one and three weeks to get the document on a telechat agenda.
In the five (or so) days before the telechat (which is always on a Thursday), you can expect to see reviews come in by e-mail. ADs do not expect immediate replies to their reviews. That said, quick responses may improve document processing time.
You are usually the best placed to respond to reviews, but chairs, shepherds and WG expert participants might have the answers too; anybody is welcome to reply.
For guidelines on how to handle AD ballots, see: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-ballot-positions/
A short recap:
DISCUSS needs to be addressed and solved. Keep an eye for these and prioritize them.
COMMENTs are less important issues, and strictly speaking won’t block the document. Please do reply to them anyway as that is how I check what comments have been seen and addressed.
Unless a major issue emerges during IESG evaluation, you should submit a draft with updates reflecting IESG reviews within two weeks of the telechat. After that, I will follow up with the other ADs to remove DISCUSS ballots (if any) and assure that their COMMENTs have been appropriately handled.
Your document is sent to the RFC Editor. If anything comes up that is not editorial during the AUTH48 process, I will be asked to sign off on the changes. Most of the time, these are obvious clarifications; if the changes are bigger, then the WG and community should be consulted.
I check the status of all Last Call reviews and AD reviews. Not all reviews require changes; however, I want to see that reviews have been considered and the working group has taken a decision. Replies such as “this is not relevant for reasons A, B and C” or “out of scope” or “we discussed this and decided against” are absolutely ok. It is also absolutely ok for you to bring back comments that might require more thought back to the WG.
Anybody is allowed to call in to the telechat as an observer. This can be useful when DISCUSSes appear, as I can ask you to jump in and answer questions. Again, this is not mandatory, but can speed up the conversation, as talking about it can be much more effective than e-mail.
It is not good to have WG participants (or authors) send conflicting answers to a review. That is why usually authors (or sometimes one author) take the responsibility to answer AD comments. However, the volume of reviews in the period before the telechat deadline can be overwhelming. So, chairs should help too, and again, no one expects immediate answers. It’s best to take your time, agree on an answer (possibly involving the WG), and then make sure to reply publicly.
You can choose how many and how often to submit new versions of the document based upon reviews. Some authors prefer to answer to all comments in one update, so they can refer the ADs to the diff. Some authors prefer to split very minor/nit/typos in one update and more important comments in another.
For ballots other than DISCUSS, do not wait for acknowledgment from ADs. Do reply to them, but then have a conversation with me about what has been addressed and what hasn’t yet. In any case, it is always OK (and much appreciated!) to ping me once you and the WG consider all comments addressed.
Process mistakes can create delays, so we try to be as careful and to avoid them as much as possible. Also, if at any point the changes made (either as Last Call or during IESG evaluation) are major, I might be required to send the document back and run another IETF Last Call or even WG Last Call and then IETF Last Call. I usually do not consider it necessary for changes that come from answering comments and that do not modify the substance of the document. However when fundamental changes are made, and especially if the document takes months in IESG Evaluation, I will need to do that.
Although each document is different, this is the typical timeline I have noticed most following:
1-3 weeks in AD evaluation
2-3 weeks for IETF Last Call
1-2 weeks for waiting for AD go ahead (depending on how long it takes to answer Last Call comments and submit new version)
2-3 weeks for IESG evaluation leading to telechat (but most reviews will come in the last 2-3 days)
1-2 weeks to get any DISCUSSes resolved (requires actions from both authors, wg chairs, and me)
1-2 weeks to handle COMMENTs and submit new version
Total time: 7-12 weeks from AD evaluation. However, if authors and other participants are not responsive when issues arise, these times can increase.
Next scheduled telechats: TBD1, TBD2, TBD3. I think we can try to aim for TBD2 .
I hope this helped, if you have any comments or questions, or if anything above looks very strange, please let me know!
Francesca