Hi,




I have reviewed this document as part of the security directorate's 
ongoing effort to review all IETF documents being processed by the 
IESG.  These comments were written primarily for the benefit of the 
security area directors.  Document editors and WG chairs should treat 
these comments just like any other last call comments.

Overall the document appears to be well written and thorough.  I 
have one security related suggestion and some nits.

It appears that this document suggests that some Secretaries should 
be given access to tools that are normally reserved for Chairs, such
as maillist administration.  It would be prudent to note in the
Security Considerations section that the Chairs know how to revoke 
those privileges in case of problems.

The authors may wish to consider the following nits.  

The third line of the first paragraph of the Introduction is a bit confusing.
current:
   of RFC 2418 [1]). Over time, the WG Secretary role's has greatly
suggested:
   of RFC 2418 [1]).  Over time, the role of the WG Secretary has greatly

The last sentence of the second paragraph of the Introduction seems to run on for a bit.
current:
   In that regard, part or even all of the guidelines it
   provides might not be relevant for the smaller WGs, the Chairs of
   which do not need to delegate operational tasks as they handle them
   by themselves.
suggested:
   In that regard, part or even all of the guidelines provided in this
   document might not be relevant for the successful operation of
   smaller WGs.  In those, the Chairs may not need to delegate 
   operations tasks.

The last two sentences of second bullet in Section 3.1.1 could use some more explanation.
current:
   The call for discussion slots
   should remind these policies as well as how should the requests be
   formulated, together with a deadline for sending them.  The call would
   also typically include information on when will the particular WG
   session be held during the IETF meeting noting that the IETF agenda
   is draft until being final.
proposed:
   The note sent by the Secretary should remind the WG members of the
   policies, the formats of requests, and deadlines.  
Note: I would just strike the last sentence as that seems to be better discussed in the 
next bullet.
   
I'll suggest some rewording of "Proposing a WG session agenda"
current:
   Based on the collected discussion's slot requests, and depending on
   the known preferences of the WG Chairs for the typical structure of
   their WG sessions, or on the objectives Chairs have for a particular
   WG session, and/or on his/her personal view, the Secretary could
   propose to the Chairs a structured agenda for the upcoming WG
   session. Following that, the WG Secretary could work with the Chairs
   to finalise the agenda in view of publishing a first draft agenda.
proposed:
   While the decisions for the slot are to be made by the WG Chairs,
   the Secretary can further aid them by proposing a session agenda
   based upon his/her knowledge of the preference of the Chairs and
   the topical work of the WG.  Following that, the WG Secretary could 
   work with the Chairs to finalize the agenda.
   
I'll suggest some rewording of the third paragraph in Section 4.
current:
   Although typically a WG might only have one Secretary there is no
   reason why two Secretaries might not be appointed. This might be to
   help transition a new WG secretary into the role, before the previous
   Secretary steps down, or simply to load balance the tasks across two
   Secretaries. Reciprocally, a person may perfectly be Secretary of
   multiple WGs. This primarily depends on his/her ability to deal with
   the induced workload, noting nevertheless that synergies may be
   realised in such a situation. In any case, this document does not
   give a recommendation on what should be the appropriate value for the
   "Secretary / WG" ratio.
proposed:
   Typically a WG may have a Secretary to cover the expected workload.
   However, a WG may consider having multiple Secretaries if the 
   workload is very excessive, or to provide an overlap of Secretaries 
   to transition the role as one steps down.  There may also be other
   reasons for multiple Secretaries that have not been recognized yet.

   Similar to individuals holding Chair roles in multiple WGs, there is
   no known reason why individuals cannot hold Secretary roles in
   multiple WGs, or that they may be a Chair of some WGs and Secretary of
   other WGs.  This will depend on his/her ability to deal with the
   workload, noting  that synergies may be realized in such situations.
   
A couple of minor things in the first paragraph of Section 5
current:
   Section 3 has listed the typical functions and responsibilities of WG
   Secretaries. The role of a WG Secretary can range from a few of these
   to the full spectrum of them, and even beyond. In that regard, there
   is a number of additional WG related events to which the support of
   the WG Secretary would be useful. Those for example include planning
   and setting for WG interim meetings, design team meetings, etc.
   Nevertheless, some tasks described herein apply to these contexts.
proposed:
   Section 3 has listed the typical functions and responsibilities of WG
   Secretaries. The role of a WG Secretary can range from a few of these
   to the full spectrum of them, and even beyond. In that regard, there
   may be additional WG related events to which the support of
   the WG Secretary would be useful; for example, planning WG interim 
   meetings.



Best regards,
Chris