Re: Creating an IETF Working Group Draft

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



At 12:25 02-12-2012, Arturo Servin wrote:
So it is ok to have bad ideas as I+D, possibly harmful for the Internet
just to have a structured discussion?

Yes.

I'll comment on draft-crocker-id-adoption-01.

Section 1 is fine. I'll suggest not amending the BCP (see the last round of RFCs about IPR as an example).

In Section 1.1:

  "and Section 8.3 of [RFC4677]"

I suggest using the web page ( http://www.ietf.org/tao.html ).

In Section 2.1:

  "No formal specification for working group 'adoption' of a draft
   exists;"

Procedures may be a better fit.

  "*  What is the position of the working group chairs, concerning
      the draft?"

I suggest removing this from basic considerations to keep matters easy.

  "REMINDER:   Once a working group adopts a draft, the document is
      owned by the working group and can be changed however the working
      group decides, within the bounds of IETF process and the working
      group charter.  It is a responsibility of the working group chairs
      to ensure that document authors make modifications in accord with
      working group rough consensus."

From the BCP:

  "The Document Editor is responsible for ensuring that the contents
   of the document accurately reflect the decisions that have been
   made by the working group."

I suggest rephrasing the last sentence reminder as:

  It is a responsibility of the document authors to make modifications in
  accord with working group rough consensus.

In Section 2.2:

 "and Section 5.2 of [RFC4677]"

See above comment about the Tao.

  "Thus, when it is not completely obvious what the opinion of the
   working group is, working group chairs should poll the working group
   to find out."

I'll highlight part of a comment [1] from Geoff Huston:

  'such expressions of disinterest in adopting the draft by some
   strange twist of logic are portrayed to point to "interest in
   discussing the document"'

If you use a poll it ends up as a 'yes/no'. The problem zone is when there are valid arguments on both sides. To put it simply there can always be a good reason not to adopt a draft (see thread at http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/sidr/current/msg04922.html ).

You could treat the decision of adoption as secondary and have opinions about the "problem to be solved" as the primary intent. You could then use the following:

  Is there strong working group support to work on the draft?

In my humble opinion it is important to tell the group up-front what is being decided. I cannot think of text to suggest.

One of the problems is that there is an assumption that the text being adopted has consensus. This leads to discussions about what text must be changed for the wg-00 version to be acceptable. The adoption turns into a review of the draft. There is ample time to produce changes as the WG will be working on the draft if it adopts it.

In Section 2.3 "Choosing Editors".

In Section 4:

  "I can't find an explicit description of Individual vs. Working
   group draft.  Some pages/docs imply the distinction, but not
   define it."

The Last Call is longer (see http://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/ad-sponsoring-docs.html ). It may be easier to drop Section 4 as the draft discusses about "IETF Working Group Draft".

Regards,
-sm

P.S. An I-D encourages the author to structure what he/she would like to communicate.

1. http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg76053.html



[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Fedora Users]