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